Talk:The Precious Legacy

Tour funding

• the language, "national sponsor, "national tour" indicates that Phillip Morris backed the U.S. tour. What is not clear to me is whether the tour of Canada was planned at the time that the tour arrived in the U.S. - or whether it was initiated in response to the exhibit's unexpected "blockbuster" success in D.C. Cities on the tour clearly had to line up local funding. According to the LATimes, the art museum in San Diego secured a pledge of "between $30,000 and 40,000" from Linkabit to submit its bid to land make San Diego the California venue. Reading all of the old news coverage will take a bit of time.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I've added to the article which hopefully gives an understanding of how the Canadian tour came about. The three Canadian museums had to arrange their own funding; one had Benson & Hedges as a major sponsor and another had Seagram's, but I didn't think it was worth putting into the article. I wouldn't mind seeing less attention given to Phillip Morris (maybe remove from infobox?). – Reidgreg (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Expansion

@E.M.Gregory and Yoninah: Finished my expansion. I don't think I deleted anything, so there are probably some redundancies now.

• Is it worth mentioning that, at the time of the exhibition, 70% of Miami Beach residents were Jewish? (The Bass Museum is in Miami Beach, which is a different city from Miami, also in Miami–Dade County.)
• Do either of you have access to the exhibition catalogue?
• According to Talisman, "The collection was over a thousand times larger than anyone had known" Does this give the impression that Talisman 'discovered' a forgotten collection? I added a bit in the section before to give this a little more context.
• It seems a little contradictory, but I added sources stating that the museum was the largest tourist attraction in Czechoslovakia, drawing 700,000 visitors annually (mostly from Germany). However, they were mainly looking at the cemetery, architecture, and the Theresienstadt exhibits; the Judaica collection was "largely unknown" and not on display at that time.
• from the 77,297 Moravian and Bohemian Jews who were sent to death camps I believe that figure is linked to the names written on a synagogue wall as a memorial. I have rough figures for "more than 200,000 Czech Jews". I feel it makes more sense to use figures for the whole country, since items from the whole country were shipped to the museum. Could I change this and maybe add a footnote for the 77k?
• The Nazi purpose in collecting and preserving so many Jewish artifacts was to demonstrate the greatness of Nazi prowess in annihilating large Jewish communities. I found this a bit dubious. The bit I added with the intentions of Reinhard Heydrich was from a 1938 cable to Berlin, which is part of the historical record. Should the quoted Newsday source be qualified or removed?
• FYI, Duncan Ferguson Cameron is given in some sources as 'Douglas Cameron' or 'Donald Cameron' but a majority of sources and the museum's website give his name as Duncan.

I think that's it. Please give it a read over and feel free to tighten up the prose. Some of the stuff I added might be a little trivial as well; better to start broad then trim. –Reidgreg (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Reidgreg: WOW!!! Thank you so much! I won't have time to look this over carefully until next week. Yoninah (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I created a quick biography for Anna Cohn and linked it in the article; I thought she was pretty important to the exhibit/tour. @Yoninah: can you add me to the GAN, or do they only allow one nominator? – Reidgreg (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Reidgreg. Do you want to nominate it for DYK? Regarding the GA, I don't think they have the same credits as DYK, but when it passes, you can certainly add the credit to your userpage. Yoninah (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I wasn't going to do a DYK for Cohn. There's one bloggy source for her early time in Israel, which probably wouldn't pass main page scrutiny (though I feel it sets context and wouldn't otherwise be likely to be challenged). Cohn was mentioned a lot in the Canadian sources (she gave the keynote address at the beginning of the Canadian tour) so I wanted to write this while it was fresh in my mind, to supplement this article. Hopefully there's a sense of how much TPL affected her career trajectory. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Precious Legacy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi - I'll make copyedits as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning) and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The "blockbuster" exhibit drew over 550,000 visitors... - I'd not use "blockbuster" here as sounds puffy. let numbers speak for themselves

 Done Yoninah (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The charter announced that: "the numerous, hitherto scattered Jewish possessions of both historical and artistic value, on the territory of the entire Protectorate, must be collected and stored" - two things - (1) charters don't announce things, people do, and (2) this bit (outside the quotes) is a bit close to the source. Actually the whole lot could be de-quoted. "The Nazis prioritised the museums's directives as the collection and storage of "numerous, hitherto scattered Jewish possessions of both historical and artistic value, on the territory of the entire Protectorate" - something.

 Done Yoninah (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

to "prove the case" that the Jews were an inferior race which had to be exterminated - "prove the case" should be reworded and dequoted

 Done Yoninah (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

At its peak, the collection held about one million pieces; about 150,000 remained after post-war dispersal. - any extra information on how items were returned to survivors and their families? Did it just happen after the war or has it continued to take place from then till now or...what?

Pinging Reidgreg who added this source. In addition to Casliber's question, I would like to know if the "post-war dispersal" was only to the former inmates of the Theresienstadt Ghetto, or also to the heirs of the Jews deported to the death camps? Yoninah (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The source isn't specific on the dispersal, but let me try to give a little background on the difference between the 1 million figure and the 130,000–150,000. Most of the items in the collection during WWII came through Theresienstadt Ghetto, which served as a stopping point for Jews who would ultimately go to the death camps. These were initially Czech Jews, followed by German and Austrian Jews, then Dutch, Danish, etc. I believe they were generally allowed to bring two suitcases, which were taken from them and the contents catalogued at Theresienstadt and sent to the museum at Prague (one of the Jews who did this work survived and was interviewed at the time of the exhibition). Presumably, the post-war dispersal meant returning items to survivors and descendants when possible, and otherwise to countries of origin, but that's just my best guess (I only looked at sources about the exhibition and didn't investigate the broader subject). The source (ref name "AlatonObjects") does state that the dispersal was completed before Prague's Jewish community turned the remaining items over to the state (1949 or 1950). It would be nice to have a little more about the dispersal, but as it's about items which aren't in the collection, I don't feel it's necessary for a thorough treatment of the exhibition. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

A brouhaha erupted in Los Angeles when the public learned that that Los Angeles County Museum of Art had turned down the exhibit and that it would instead go to the then far smaller city of San Diego - as much as I like the word "brouhaha", it does strike me as colloquial.....uproar/outcry...something?

Pinging E.M.Gregory who added this source. Was it an outcry, a protest...and by whom? Yoninah (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning that Miami Beach has a large Jewish population would be good if it can be sourced and linked (the point that Reidgreg made on the talk page)

@Reidgreg: could you add this from your source please? Yoninah (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Added with source (ref name "APmiamiBackstage"). The source was a short bit in the Globe and Mail on the opening in Miami Beach, which was credited to the Associated Press. So it's possible there may be a longer/fuller version of the AP story in other publications, particularly in Florida or in cities which would be hosting the exhibition. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems really weird that it did not get to Australia for another 13 years (!?) - any background on this?

I'll look into it more. Reidgreg do you also have anything? I just found out about it by chance, looking up exhibit catalogues. Yoninah (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It looks like it was really driven by Jana Vytrhlik - see here and here. But also here. We could always try and ask her - Jana is still active and gving a lecture in a few weeks in Hobart. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a great find! The interview might be too much of a primary source. I did a little follow-up and found this which indicates the exhibit also went to Melbourne and New Zealand. (editing break) Okay, I've expanded for the 1998–1999 tour so much as I could find sources online. Most are primary sources, unfortunately, but it's fairly neutral so hopefully it's okay. @Yoninah: would you mind giving it a look over and maybe cleaning it up a bit? – Reidgreg (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: primary sources are okay for many things, like filling in uncontroversial details etc. Nice addition! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality: - see above

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: - see above

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - pending some issues to address, but overall a nice, tight article that doesn't need much to get the green hot-cross bun. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC) Okay, am not bothered by the one remaining issue of a word that may be a tad on the colloquial side. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Casliber thanks! I didn't have time yesterday but hope to polish up the additions today or tomorrow. Yoninah (talk) 10:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

More expansions

Since we've got the "green hot-crossed bun" I thought I'd start a new section for further work on the article.

I feel we did a pretty good job with the North American tour, but I've found more and more to go before and after it. It's not as easy to find these exhibitions since they aren't all under the title Precious Legacy. I'm not sure how similar these exhibitions were to the North American tour, given that they happened years apart. Nonetheless, from what I've read there are an awful lot of similarities (which again has me thinking that the Czech curators should be given more credit) and I feel that it makes sense to include them all for a thorough treatment.

I found an English-language digital newsletter from the museum, and will try to skim through the back issues for other foreign exhibitions. It didn't include all of the 1998–1999 tour, but I figure it's still a good place to start. Not sure now much luck I'll have with non-English sources.

Oh, nice addition of pictures, Yoninah. For the picture of the ROM, though, that one was taken after the 2007 facodomy to the building. Ideally, I feel it would be better to use an image as the museum appeared in the mid-1980s, or at least one which emphasizes the east side of the building (where the main entrance was at the time) rather than the new north entrance. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I went through the online newsletters and annual reports from the museum, and didn't find any other comparable shows. They frequently loan children's drawings from Terezin, paintings, photographs, textiles, or religious objects, but not all of them together, and nothing as comprehensive as the shows already in the article. Almost all of the loans were to the West, though I noticed a travelling exhibition to Japan, and loans to South America and New Zealand. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely worth a shot at FAC at some point. I think it is within striking distance of that. I'll be around if folks decide to nominate there - it'd be a nice change for the main page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the good word, Casliber. Reidgreg I hope to dig up more information, too, especially in Hebrew sources now that you've added the Israeli Museum showing, but I'm pressed for time right now. Yoninah (talk) 13:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Heh, there's no rush Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

That'd be great, Yoninah! I hadn't realized how close the Czechs were to Israel (which drew me to this Air & Space article about the beginnings of Israel's air force). It'd be nice if we could get some images of actual objects from the exhibit; JMP allows for some images to be used "for educational purposes" but I think Wikipedia needs it to be less restrictive than that. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I came across this poster on Flickr. Maybe we could ask them to change the licensing. Yoninah (talk) 21:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. The creator is listed[1] as both Grafik Communications (design) and the Smithsonian. If it was the Smithsonian alone then it should be in the public domain (the Smithsonian seems to hold the copyright), but I'm not sure how creative control is split. I would guess that Smithsonian employees or other museum employees took photographs, which were then composited together by Grafik into the poster. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Veracity of "Museum to an Extinct Race"

This affects the end of the second paragraph of the History section, and possibly also the lead. I'm a little disappointed as this was the DYK fact that appeared on the Main Page, but we did our best at the time – I don't believe the Wikipedia Library was widely available then.

@IsfahanKaAasmaan: thanks for finding the blog post "Fact or Legend – Did the Nazis Plan to Open a Museum of an Extinct Jewish Race?" on the website of ANU - Museum of the Jewish People, which calls into question whether the Nazis actually planned a "Museum to an Extinct Race".

The author of the blog post appears to be Jonathan Hale Rosen, who wrote an alternate history novel 'The Museum of an Extinct Race' (link).

I found a 2016 journal article 'The Museum of an Extinct Race' - Fact vs. Legend: from the journal Judaica Bohemiae, published by the Jewish Museum in Prague. It's author is listed as Magda Veselská (a historian).

That author's preliminary work is noted by a 2012 journal article, "The Jewish Museum in Prague During the Second World War" by Leo Pavlát (then director of the Jewish Museum in Prague) in European Judaism (journal).

I'm going to start working on a way to incorporate this into the article and reframe what's already there. Thanks again! – Reidgreg (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts!

I would add, though, that I have heard this claim repeated in the a history course. I'm not entirely sure what sort of legitimacy the article from ANU or their claim has--in fact, in some ways, (this is just an opinion, really) I think the point of the "Museum to an Extinct Race" "myth" shows very well what the point of a museum often is, insofar as it can act as a documentation of an exploited of disempowered community. Consider, for instance, the British museum and the many exploits preserved there from colonized peoples. The museum as an institution itself has a very problematic position in history.

I am also personally a little concerned about the possible biases that the author of the article Jonathan Hale Rose might have, and of the publications you have mentioned, as they are (i) a Museum (ii) Jewish (therefore, perhaps more likely to favor one historical narrative over another).

In fact, this is exactly why I explicitly wondered if there's any evidence for the this claim of "Museum to an Extinct Race" and if there's any research or citations contradictory to the claims made in the ANU article, ones that actually have a more in-depth study of the "Museum to an Extinct Race" "myth", or perhaps other sources (than the ANU article/the Jewish Museum publications) that confirm the claim made by ANU.

However, I am new to Wikipedia, and I'm not entirely sure if figuring this out is our task or that of a historian or researcher in the field. Perhaps we should rely on the ANU article and "correct" the information available on the page accordingly, in absence of any other available research.

IsfahanKaAasmaan (talk) 07:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

My intention is to present the two major interpretations/theories/narratives. That's our job really, not to determine the truth but to summarize what is published by reliable sources. The journal articles I mentioned above and a couple others say that there's no evidence for a "Museum to an Extinct Race". That narrative has been so widely promulgated that it has to be included, and the more recent counterpoints should also be in there. This article is about the collection and the exhibit, so I don't want to go into unnecessary detail. A broader treatment could be made in the article about the museum. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense! I'm new to the Wiki editing side of things, so I wasn't entirely sure what the best approach is. Thanks for your good work :)

IsfahanKaAasmaan (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Talmidavi: I see in your recent edit you changed the lead of the article to reflect one of the sources debunking the Museum of an Extinct Race myth. I had been working on this, collected sources, and was in the process of writing expansions for it across three articles, but then other things came up and I had to set it aside. (There are two other articles I want to promote to GA for this summer, then this would be next on my to-do list.)

I'm going to remove the subject material from the article lede as it makes the lede way too long (5 paragraphs) and the matter should be resolved in the body first before being mentioned in the lede (the lede summarizes the body, that's how articles are written). I do intend to get back to this (I've already put quite a bit of work in) and in the meantime, there's a tag in the body directing readers to this talk page section. You are, of course, free to edit the article yourself if you feel that's a good use of your time. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)