Talk:Jewish response to The Forty Days of Musa Dagh

Header

The header "heroes... of the Holocaust" seems to me POV, even if it's POV we can (presumably) all get behind. Perhaps "resistance forces" would be a good substitution? Khazar (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Other suggestions: "propaganda machine" could probably be replaced by a more technical term (can we identify the specific office involved to describe them with a less loaded term?) and "explosive nature of the book" seems a bit editorializing--perhaps this could replaced with a direct quote from a source on the book's nature? Khazar (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions,Khazar. May I please ask you to edit the article as you believe it should be in your opinion? Thank you for your help.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I can do the header--the latter two ("prop. machine" and "explosive nature") may be better left to someone more familiar with the sources. BTW, I'm on the fence about the concerns expressed on the DYK page--that perhaps this is better folded into the main article on the book--but either way it's a fascinating bit of history. Nice research. Khazar (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

If this article is included in the article about the book, it will be undue weight. This book's influence on the Jews during the Holocaust is such a special case that IMO it deserves an article on its own. Besides there's still plenty of material to be added to this article about Jewish response to the book. I will work on adding more info to it in the following days, but IMO the article is good for DYK as it is now. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. After looking at your additions, I'm much more persuaded it's a stand-alone subject, so feel free to flag me down in support if anybody does challenge this one again as a standalone. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much, it is kind of you.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, the last sentence in the "Inka" section, though lovely writing, has a whiff of OR and POV, too. Could we specify instead how/where she died? Or just that she died in the Holocaust if nothing more specific is available? I think this will make the same point to the reader while keeping it in a more neutral tone. Khazar (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe Inka died in the Holocaust. I believe she survived, and apparently wrote a book that was published in 1992 according to this source. It is not for sure of course, but it is my understanding of the source. --Mbz1 (talk) 21:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I see. Let's just pull that sentence for now. It seems rather vague to see that her own Musa Dagh is coming if we can't say specifically what happened to her; I think the sense of it is clear simply from the 1941 date of her quote. Khazar (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not mind pulling off the sentence, but just to justify its inclusion, please see here It was taken from Inka's own words, I only put it outside of the quote.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm game for re-including it as long as we make it clear that it's her commentary and not an editor's. But I'm not sure it's needed, really. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll think about this, and maybe include with the changed language. Thank you for your help. It is greatly appreciated.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. Much bigger thanks to you for co-creating this article. Khazar (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)