Talk:The Abandonment of the Jews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.


This book is a possible source for use in other articles, but I don't think it deserves an article of its own. I'll hold off nominating it for anything, though, until I see what others have to say about it. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 17:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

{{hangon}}

      • It is an important book by itself. There are many articles about books. Zeq 03:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge to Holocaust article[edit]

I've proposed merging this article to Holocaust#Who knew about the killings? There is no indication in this article as to why this book is notable. The subject of the book is already covered in the Holocaust article, and I see no reason to keep a separate article on this book. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 12:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The book is very notabel. It has over 17,000 mention on google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22The+Abandonment+Of+The+Jews%22 Zeq 12:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not Google. Please explain in encyclopedic terms why this book deserves an article. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 13:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
It is notable book (so many mentiones on the web) and important one. Hence it has encyclopedic value. Zeq 13:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
So, explain why it is notable (and 17,000 Google hits does not explain anything). -- Donald Albury(Talk) 13:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
There are many articles about it (including in IHT and NYT) I found out about it in a TV documentary. How many books do you know that a TV documentary was done on them ? If it was not notable it would not be mentioned 17,000 on the web. Zeq 14:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
But, what is it about the book that would lead to articles being written about it and a documentary produced about it? Without that information there is no encyclopedic content, and thus no article. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 15:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
How does some book becaome notable and othrs do not ? How do i know. All I care is that this book is notable enough to apear ion the web 17,000 times , to have many articles on it etc... - I don't ask how. Zeq 19:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Let me put it this way: What is the book notable for? What has been said about it? The article as it stands looks like a cut and paste from a dust jacket blurb. So, what has been said about this book in reputable published sources? What sources were used for what has already been put in the article? If you cannot tell me why this book is notable, then how can you write an encyclopedia article about it? Seventeen thousand Google hits indicates that the book probably is notable, but you can't write an article that says nothing more than that the book is notable because it gets 17,000 Google hits. Most of those Google hits are stores selling copies of the book. Other sites are blogs. There are reviews of the book on-line, such as [1] and [2], which would be usable sources for an article. But many books are reviewed, and not all deserve an article. You need to find material published by reliable sources that discusses the impact of the book and the controversies surrounding it. Otherwise, it is just another source for articles related to the Holocaust. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 20:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Donald (above) that the previous versions of this article did not make it clear what this book contained, what Wyland contends, or why the book is influential or important. Hopefully the recent edits have remedied these problems. Ronreisman (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the whole concept of the abandonment of the Jews should be an independent article, but the book, perhaps not. I will put up a mergeto flag this discussion. Valley2city 23:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Original research[edit]

Since this is an article about the book, not the subject, the arguments in rebuttal to the books ideas must be sourced to comments made against the book itself, not arguments we can find refuting any claims. i think most of the material in the arguments sections should be removed, and replaced with ONLY comments directed at the book itself. i removed a summary of arguments that said more could have been done. While its tempting to write such words here, we cannot ourselves weigh in on this, or any other issue. the section i edited this out of, now called "Impossibility of greater effective rescue", is still probably original research, as i dont know if the authorities cited have addressed this book. If its agreed that this is an important book in the argument of the greater issues involved, this article needs improvement beyond what i can likely dedicate time to, unless someone pays me:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree with what you're saying, although Rubinstein's Myth of Rescue does seem to be an attempt (successful in my view) of rebutting Wyman specifically , perhaps because Wyman would appear to be most responsible for the now booming cottage industry of popular history books criticizing the Western Allies (and corporations) of complicity for the Holocaust.172.190.21.199 (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Rubinstein's "Myth of Rescue" is not respected in most academic circles. He is primarily known as someone who writes about very wealthy Englishmen, and his book has been repeatedly cited as a polemic and biased apology for the actions (and inactions) of the British government. The 'cottage industry' that you cite as the responsibility of Wyman includes many reputable academic and popular historical volumes. This include Doris Kearns Goodwin's Pulitzer-prize-winning "No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II" which re-presents and amplifies much of the same material and conclusions Wyman documented (eg the role of Breckinridge Long and his State Dept. associates in blocking rescue of Jews, President Roosevelt's acceptance of Long's rationales and consequent actions, etc.). In fact, most of the same facts that Rubinstein presents in his book were first presented by Wyman in his books. The principal difference between them is the interpretation. Ronreisman (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The "Counter-Arguments" topic of the article has been flagged by two Wikipedia notifications:

Question book-new.svg This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2010)


This section may stray from the topic of the article. Please help improve this section or discuss this issue on the talk page. (October 2010)

Although all are entitled to their own interpretation of facts, the rules in Wikipedia are Neutral Point of View, Context based on the highest-quality references. Wikipedia bans 'Original Research' where 'editors' attempt to editorially insert their own biased point of view without adequate references and/or context.. This article, IMHO (and the judgement of other editors -- see below) is greatly flawed by the efforts of some editors to rebut Wyman's material, while at the same time misrepresenting the facts and positions he's presented in a very influential and highly-respected book. I'm not suggesting we delete references to Wyman's critics (eg Rubinstein), just that we establish proper context and don't misrepresent the references. Where, for instance, does Kranzler *ever* criticize or disagree with the material in "Abandonment of the Jews"? Yet the manner in which Kranzler's material is presented in this article would improperly and inaccurately give the impression that these two scholars disagree with each other on points about which they actually agree, or that Wyman did not recognize or document the actions of 'Rescuers' (the principal subject matter of Kranzler's work). In fact, Kranzler eloquently documented the rarity of 'Rescue' and prized the 'Rescuers' as much for their jewel-like scarcity as for their virtues, ethics, and courage. Both Wyman and Kranzler (and scores of other historians, including Weinstein, et al) recognize and agree on the culpability and consequent loss of life that are the responsibilities of the British Foreign Office (and other British executives) -- primarily for their abandonment of the Mandatory responsibility to keep a Palestinian Jewish Homeland open as a refuge for endangered Jews (a point made repeatedly by people like WInston Churchill) -- as well as the US State Dept., President Roosevelt, and a number of other salient issues. Nevertheless, the naive reader would be misled by this article (as it is currently written) into thinking that there is much more controversy to Wyman's positions than there actually is. This situation should be remedied ASAPractical. I propose we clean up this section. It lacks proper context, and is somewhat misleading about the nature of and quality of the scholarly criticism of Wyman's work. It also acts as a 'red herring' insofar as it covers 'rescue' operations that were orthogonal to the subject-matter covered by Wyman, and few of the 'Counter-Argument' points have any relevance to Wyman's arguments, positions, or documentation. It's as if the editor is saying 'Some people saved Jews, therefore the Jews weren't abandoned; case closed.' That sort of 'Original Research' does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to improve this article, or at least to remedy the obviously misleading statements? Ronreisman (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added citations in each place where [citation needed] occurred, except in a couple of cases where I could not find references to back up the statements. In those cases I've removed the questionable statements. I've also attempted to add context, and changed a few details to conform with fact-checking. Hopefully this will eliminate the 'Original Research' problems. Ronreisman (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)