Talk:Oskar Schindler
 | Oskar Schindler has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: July 21, 2013. (Reviewed version). |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Oskar Schindler article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 6 months  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Only member of the Nazi Party who is buried on Mt. Zion edit
The article currently says: He is buried in Jerusalem on Mount Zion, the only member of the Nazi Party to be honoured in this way.
I recently pointed out that the ultimate source for this appears to be Thomas Keneally, but his original statement appears to have been different (it contained the important word "probably"). I don't have Keneally's book at hand, so I added a source that quoted him, and changed the article accordingly (in this edit). My edit was reverted, for understandable reasons (the source is a book review, not a scholarly article).
The online sources that I could find for the claim that Schindler was the only member of the Nazi Party on Mt. Zion ultimately lead back either to that book review, or directly to Keneally (example that links to the book review). They usually omit the word "probably". That's problematic, because their source doesn't actually make that claim.
Could someone please check the two references currently given (Steinhouse 1994; Thompson 2002, p. 25), to see if they provide additional sources, or also rely on Keneally? Could someone also have a look at what Keneally actually wrote in his book, and if he explains how he arrived at that conclusion? Renerpho (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
- Keneally does't mention that in his book, which I have right here. The source is this article. It says "As far as Thomas Keneally could discover" so I think we should re-add your word "possibly" but we don't actually need an additional citation since this one already covers your point. — Diannaa (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2023 edit
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Schindler lost the actual ring soon after the war" to "The ring itself is consider lost with no clear indication of what happened to it in the year following the war."
This better reflect what in the cited source which does not in anyway indicate that Schindler lost the ring as opposed to it being stolen, sold, confiscated or simply lost after Schindler's death. The only quote in the cited article is clearly more general: "That gold ring has long been considered lost, with no clear explanation of what Schindler did with it after the war." Edit709 (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Role in Gleiwitz incident edit
Should this article mention Schindler's alleged role in the Gleiwitz incident? He's already mentioned in the article on the incident itself. It seems like it might be a good tidbit to add to the section on his Abwehr career, if there are reliable sources to support his involvement. 70.181.1.68 (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)