Talk:Rezső Kasztner/Archive 1

Archive 1

More information

I added a huge amount of information. Flyerhell 07:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, the article needed it. I think we still need documentary sources for the facts in order to claim a neutral view on the controversy. --Hoziron 13:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I really enjoyed reading and writing about Kasztner. I had never heard of him before I recieved a newsletter in my email box that mentioned him. I found it kind of hard to find sources, so I based the majority of what I wrote on that one reference than I posted. I agree that we need more information about the controversy. I tried being NPOV but with so little information it was difficult. There are a few gramatical errors in the article that I will fix and if I get a chance I will try to find some more information and post it. Flyerhell 21:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I have a lot of high-quality sources on this topic and will contribute to the article when I find the time. The controversy is not completely accurate and also the libel trial and appeal is worth a longer description. --Zero 09:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is one of the most incendiary trials in Israeli history and had several significant related matters crop up as it ran its course. There is nothing about Joel Brand, the three Parachutists (Senesh, Palgi, and Goldstein) in the article. Nor is there very much information in his intervention on behalf of significant actors in the "Final Solution" at Nuremberg, which became a critical issue in the trial.

Other controversial assassinations of Jewish leaders in Israel's history

Does this really belong in this article? Flyerhell 18:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. It might be a topic for another article plus a link here, that's all. It is also doubtful that Kasztner was a "Jewish leader". Certainly he wasn't at the time he was assassinated. --Zero 19:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In Budapest he elbowed his way to the top during the Holocaust. After the war he was given a prominent political post in Israel. The Kaszner trial was actually at insistance of his party which felt threatened by Malchiel Gruenwald's accusations against Kasztner. Thanks to Gruenwald's very talented and idealistic young defense lawyer, Shmuel Tamir (much later appointed Justice Minister), the trial led to Kasztner's conviction in the first trial. An excellent book about this affair is Ben Hecht's "Perfidy". LPfeffer May 18, 2006

Hecht's book is not unbiased. He had his own ax to grind. More importantly, it is not scholarly nor rigorous; much that is known about the events was not available when Hecht wrote Perfidy. While anyone interested in these events should read it, its tendentious tone mars many of its contributions. Although it too has flaws, Yehuda Bauer's Jews For Sale is far more authoritative and accurate. It was written many years later, with far more availability of primary source material for documentation. In any case, this is a subject which is only now drawing truly critical scholarly attention. As Hecht does argue, too many people from too many sides (Israeli politics, Hungarian and Jewish establishment figures, etc.) have have been able to distort the facts, and been allowed to present their version(s) of this chapter in Holocaust history without scholarly accountability. 66.108.4.183 16:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

While Hecht's book is not unbiased, it is extensively sourced. The current edition has extensive footnotes, as well as excerpts of letters and trial transcripts now in public records. Earlier editions did not have these notes. I agree its not perfect, but dismissing it out of hand without checking the footnotes is just as flawed as accepting it without checking them. Case in point: Hecht's assertion that Kastner was a Jewish Leader is prima facie correct based on his being a government minister, but additionally, was both Prosecutor Tell and Chaim Cohen's stated reasons for pursuing the matter in both the District Court and Supreme Court transcripts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.90.240 (talk) 14:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The government of Israel certainly considered Kasztner to be a "Jewish leader". In the state-sponsored appeal against the original libel verdict, Attorney General Haim Cohen claimed "The man Kasztner does not stand here as a private individual. He was a recognized representative, official or non-official of the Jewish National Institutes in Palestine and of the Zionist Executive; and I come here in this court to defend the representative of our national institutions." (quoted in Ben Hecht, Perfidy, p. 268).RolandR 16:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting to contrast Ben Hecht with Yehuda Bauer. Hecht was a well known and well paid author and script writer in Hollywood and gave this up to join the "Bergson Group" (led by Hillel Kook)to try to rescue Jews during the Holocaust - and later to help establish Israel. He was an idealist. True - he was not a "Professor". Yehuda Bauer created his name from the Holocaust's tragedy. It is naive and dangerous to assume that a "Professor" is necessarily truthful and historically accurate. There were many highly pedigreed "historians" in the Communist states and their "historical works" are often to be taken with a huge grain of salt - since they were frequently apologists for their paymaster: the state.Emesz 6 Nov 2009

Judge Halevy's indictment

The article as it stands is very inaccurate on the matter of the first libel trial, only mentioning the Becher issue. That was about the least of the accusations, and Judge Halevy was mostly concerned with it only because Kasztner lied about it in his testimony. It is not why Halevy accused him of "selling his soul to the devil". Halevy actually made a vastly more serious accusation. Here is Halevy's explanation of the "sold his soul" remark in the court judgement:

The benefit that Kasztner gained from the contract with the Nazis was the rescue of the "camp of prominent Jews" and the price that he had to pay for this was a complete surrender of any attempts at real rescue steps benefiting the "camp of the people". The price the Nazis paid for this was to waive the extermination of the "camp of prominent people". With this contract to save the prominent Jews, the head of the Aid and Rescue Committee made a "concession" with the exterminator: in return for the rescue of the prominent Jews, Kasztner agreed to the extermination of the people and abandoned them to their fate.
-- Halevy, Attorney General vs. Gruenwald (1965), page 111; quoted in L. Bilsky, Transformative Justice - Israeli Identity on Trial, Univ. Michigan Press (2004) p47.

Bilsky discusses this over several pages and gives further examples of Halevy's words. It is clear that our article needs work on this issue. I propose to insert this quotation with some glue. --Zero^talk 06:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Keinermeize

Apparently the only information on Keinermeize is available in Ben Hecht's Perfidy. Kastner was responsible for the rescue of the wealthy and public figures only. Keinermeize (Meaning land of bread in Hungarian or German) was the place the Jews were fooled into thinking they would be sent. Kastner knew about this.

You can find more (and more accurate) information in Braham, Politics of Genocide. In Hungarian, the fictitious name is Kenyermezo (apologies: I have no facility for umlauts and other accents on my keyboard), meaning "meadow of bread" in Hungarian. 66.108.105.21 17:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

It is written: Kenyérmező --Ltbuni (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hannah Szenes

Kastner played a role in her murder. See the reviews at: http://www.amazon.com/Perfidy-Ben-Hecht/dp/0964688638.

With respect, while Hecht lambasted Kastner for not interceding on Hannah Senesh's behalf, he never asserted anything more than inaction, nor is anything more than than inaction/indifference borne out by the court transcripts. While I (and the Israeli public at the time) consider his inaction morally reprehensible, it was, nonetheless, the extent of his "role in her murder." A more compelling accusation, and one that this article should address, is his role in convincing Joel Palgi to surrender to the Gestapo, and Peretz Goldstein to the Hungarians. Both were tortured and sent to Auschwitz. Pagli escaped. Goldstein did not. Palgi's testimony regarding this, which the prosecution did not rebut, is in Protocol CC 124/53 in the DC of Jerusalem. Pagli's book Ruakh Gdala Baah (The Great Wind) also discusses it, but would amount to a primary source (usable within limits). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.90.240 (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Rudolf_Kastner#Alleged_collaboration

Under Rudolf_Kastner#Alleged_collaboration it says:

In 1960, sixteen years after the meeting with Kastner, Eichmann told Time Magazine that Kastner "agreed to help keep the Jews from resisting deportation — and even keep order in the collection camps — if I would close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young Jews emigrate to Palestine. It was a good bargain."

Does anybody know at which number/date this was of Time Magazine? Also, as it is now, it sounds as if Eichmann was actually interviewed by Time Magazine. Regards, Huldra 18:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It was an interview with a foreign supporter which was sold to Life Magazine, not Time Magazine, and published on November 28th and December 5th, 1960. The Kastner section was in part 2. [1] Shammai 00:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Rudolf Vrba

Some of the text being copied from the above is relevant, and some not, and the way it's written is introducing problems with flow and repetition -- because it was written for a different article. The ref tags were also copied without editing, which led to empty ref tags. Would whoever would like to add this please write it in his own words for this article? Even if a lot of it is copied, it does need to be tailored to this text, as do the footnotes. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Assasin

I just saw this story on Cspan today but dozed off in the middle of it! Can someone tell us what happened to Kastner's assasin? John celona (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Descendents"

Why do we include a paragraph about his daughter and her children, including what she does for a living and where she lives? It seems unnecessary to include that much detail, wouldn't "He is survived by a daughter, a nurse who lives in Israel" be sufficient if mentioning her current status is deemed to add anything? Avruch ^T 12:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would exclude the information; can you explain what specific issue you have with it? Compare, for example, the last paragraph of this section of a related Featured Article. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Death date

Dear User:Kope. I have noticed that you changed the date of death from 12-mar-1957 to 15-mar-1957. Do you have any references to support this change?

Thanks

TomyDuby (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. There is one more place where you should change the date, namely in the Infobox Person.

I took the corrected date from the Hebrew page on Kastner plus Anna Porter's recent book. Actually I tried to find out long the correct date of Kaster's birth, apparently no-one knows that. Kope (talk) 12:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Days from being shot until death

I'd just like to point out that in the summary at the top of the page it says he dies after 12 days of being shot, whereas at the bottom it says he dies after 9 days? I hope someone can confirm which one of these is correct. 122.105.134.189 (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

My revert

Mashkin, I reverted your edits for two reasons:

First, I think it's important to fully explain the reasoning of the lower court in the lead. It's barely possible to put too much weight on it, per UNDUE, given that Kastner was assassinated because of it. Secondly, you seem to be editorializing with this edit: "The reliability of the interview has never been clarified, not least because of the death penalty that Sassen faced in Holland." We would need a source for that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've restored this again. If you don't like the source, perhaps you could find another one? I also removed the comment about the authenticity of the Eichman interview not being clear. Just because a court of law can't accept it for legal reasons doesn't mean it is, as a matter of fact, in any doubt. If someone reliable has said it is, please quote them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than continuing to revert without discussion, could you say here what your aim is? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

To prove your good faith and to make this discussion more, please restore the last edit.

Regarding the assassins, the important fact is that they belonged to to a LEHI related group. The fact that one of them was a informant does not belong to the lead indeed, but is not a "conspiracy theory" but a well known fact that came out in his trial. Mashkin (talk) 18:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You would need a mainstream reliable source for that edit. [2] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Its a matter of public record: The Attorney General v. Joseph Menckes, Zeev Eckstein and Dan Shemer, in District Court, Tel Aviv. Are trial records mainstream and reliable? This is not new or incendiary information. Its been in the court transcript and available to the public for decades.

A couple of points: I doubt that there is much point in quoting the judge beyond the "sold is soul" and his ruling that the train was a decoy. All the rest is repetitious and certainly not appropriate for the lead.

About the source that I wish to be replaced, it is simply not an appropriate one Wikipedia:RS and in this case there are enough books to quote what the judge said. I am willing to help locate such a source, but this does not justify keeping the current one.

The authenticity of the Eichmann interview with Sassen is suspect almost by definition. It is extremely important to give the proper background when describing these conversations (that they were two Nazis talking in Argentina). So when such a source is to be *mentioned* a proper warning is the natural thing to do. The fact that the court did not accept it is not meaningless and just a technicality concerning rule of evidence. Mashkin (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding what the judge said, I think it's important to explain the sense in which it was viewed as collaboration, for readers not familiar with the story. It does no harm to retain the judge's comments.

That is why I do not see any point in giving the judges words after the train part. I t already explains the background. Mashkin (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: your second point, yes, there are plenty of sources out there, which is why we should find another one rather than removing the material.

Can you find a good source that says the Eichmann interview is suspect?

I think that the source I gave about the trial is good enough for showing at least that it is suspect. Mashkin (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You didn't address the issue of the conspiracy theory in the lead. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I did address the issue of conspiracy (there was none of course). I agree that the fact that Eckstein was an informant does not belong to the lead. Btw, here is an interesting article on the subject [3]. Mashkin (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is interesting. It's just that I've read such a lot of conflicting material about this, and I have no idea what's right or wrong, that I feel we should stick to the most mainstream sources we can find (and not comment pieces), especially for the lead. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

When you added that Eckstein was a paid informant for the Shabak, [4] you used this source. Where does it say that exactly? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This article form Haaretz [5] by Yossi Melman explicitly says that Eckstein was an informer. The other article mtnios there names and the conenction ot LEHI. There is a recent movie by Gaylen Ross with an interview with Eckstein. No source describes Eckstein as a holocaust survivo. Mashkin (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Ehud Sprinzak, Brother Against Brother (Free Press, 1999), p77, Shin Bet leader Isser Harel admitted in interviews and books that Eckstein had been an informer. Harel claimed that (Sprinzak's paraphrase) "At a certain point, however, the young man was so enchanted with his Kingdom of Israel companions that he severed all relations with the secret service, confessed to his new friends about his Shin Beth connection, and volunteered to kill Kastner." Zero^talk 22:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Kranzler

I removed the following because it looks like OR. Could whoever wants to add it please post here what the source says? It's Kranzler, David (2004) The Man Who Stopped the Trains to Auschwitz: George Mantello. Syracuse University Press. No page number was given.

However almost all other historians disagree with weitz’s position, they argue that the heroes like George Manttelo, Rudolf Vrba, Solomon Schonfeld, Michoel Ber weissmandl, Rache sternboch, Rauel Wallenberg have saved thousand and even tens of thousands of Jews, while not collaborating with Eichman, and none of them was silent about the extermination in Auschwitz .

SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverting well sourced comments before checking the source is really unacceptable. It seems that slimvirgin is trying to have it appear that weitz’s position is the mainstream view among historians, he keeps reverting any source quoting the position of the other historians.

As Kranzler explains in his well documented Book, George Mantello has distributed al solvedor papers to thousands of jews, has publicized the Auschwitz protocols detailing the mass murder of Jews, Has publicized Hungary’s deportation of 12,000 Jews daily to Auschwitz from May 15 1944, had been working with the churches and foreign governments and the red cross to demonstrate against Hungary’s deportation, and putting pressure on Horthy to stop it. The deportations where halted on July 9 1994, and with that “200,000” Hungarian Jews survived the holocaust. In the same time Kastner remained silent, not notifying the masses, not notifying world leaders, no outcry what’s whoever. Kastner was busy negotiating his train, testifying in favor of 4 SS officer, and hiding the Auschwitz protocols under the shelf. While historians and the Israeli courts have had some disagreement about what kastners MOTIVE has been, almost all historians agree that the fact that kastner remained silent, has helped the Germans kill more Jews not less. (Berkshires (talk) 02:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

Could you please quote the section of Kranzler that you're using to support the edit you made? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverting well sourced quote before checking out the source should be terated as vandalism, what place can I file a complaint with Wikipidia? (Berkshires (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

Before complaining about vandalism, could you please post here what your source says, with a page number? The reason I'm asking is that he probably didn't say exactly that you're adding to the article. Please see our sourcing policies: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. I'm quite happy to work with you to get the text fixed, but it can't stay as it is, and it needs a proper reference. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The reference is very clear, “The Man Who Stopped the Trains to Auschwitz: George Mantello , If you have not made the effort to research the source before deleting, but deleting info because it “PROBABLY doesn’t say exactly what says in the page”… I would consider that very unprofessional. As wikipidia rules say, reverts have to be done very carefully. (I think reverts are when you “delete” comments, not when you reposting a well sourced comment, correct me if I am wrong). Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkshires (talk • contribs) 02:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The sourcing policy says that the burden of proof is on the person who wants to make the edit. It says (see WP:V):

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.

I'd therefore appreciate it if you could supply a page number, and post here what the source says exactly. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 03:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for quoting the Wikipidia rules, however I think you left out a few other paragraphs in the same article, here is what wikipidia says regarding deleting items.

Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them.

If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{citation needed}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. Alternatively, you may leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or move the material to the talk page. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page.”[2]::

So can you please restore the comment, and I can guide you where you can exactly find the information, or MAYBE you make the effort to read the book before deleting??? (Berkshires (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC))

You can't ask people to read whole books to find the right page. As you've consulted it, could you give us the page numbers where he says what you added to the article, please? That will help to resolve things. We can't leave that kind of unsourced commentary in a lead. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Berkshires has restored the edit for the eighth time, still without a page number. I've looked through the Kranzler book, but can't find what would support it:

However almost all other historians disagree with weitz’s position, they argue that the heroes like George Manttelo, Rudolf Vrba, Solomon Schonfeld, Michoel Ber weissmandl, Rache sternboch, Rauel Wallenberg have saved thousand and even tens of thousands of Jews, while not collaborating with Eichman, and none of them was silent about the extermination in Auschwitz.

Even with a source, it isn't written appropriately, but we can cross that bridge if a page number is ever produced. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you slimvirgin for not reverting my comment for the eight time… I will do some work tonight and get exact page numbers & quotes so we can resolve this matter tomorrow. Thank You <Berkshires (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)>

It seems like slimvirgin or plot spoiler (maybe they are both the same person) would not give me a chance to get exact page numbers & quotes, but just keeps reverting, so I guess we will continue to add well sourced information. <Berkshires (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)>

Berkeshires, the source certainly has not told "and my opinion is shared by most of the historians", I also assumed it did not put names of the heroes in the lowercase nor misspelled them. Thus, the edit like this cannot be accepted. To fix it we need to know what exactly was said by the source and on what page number. Thus, please before inserting the sloppy edit in the nineth or tenth time do some homework:

• find the book and locate the exact page number
• put the relevant citation on the talk page (or if it is suitable put the quoted citation verbatim in the article.
• Check spelling and capitalization, provide appropriate wikilinks to the heroes.

It needs more work than copypasting a text but such edit would stay unlike the nine you did before. I have started such work but I cannot do it properly without checking the citation.

Said this, I agree that the situation that the lede to such a controversial figure as Kastner has only one highly positive citation is unacceptable. We need something for the neutrality: either add a balancing citation (e.g. the material proposed by Berkeshires) or move the praising quote from the lede to the body of the article. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Alex, I have made some corrections and have added other historians that disagree with Weitz, I am working to get page numbers and exact quotes to improve the quality of the comment, however to keep reverting well sourced info just because you want to know what page number it is, is not a good way to resolve editing disputes. <Berkshires (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)>

Alex, for the neutrality, we have the court case, the verdict, and the fact that he was shot. I feel the positive quote is needed to show that some historians, at least, do view him positively. I'm not against adding another view so long as it's well-written and well-sourced, mind you. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I am restoring the comments the way it was edited by Alex Bakharev , while there is definitely a legitimate point to ask for a page number, it is not legitimate to DELETE because of that, rather a “citation needed” should be inserted. As long as slimvergin would keep deleting I would have no choice but to add comments that are well sourced so this article stays neutral. Thanks <Berkshires (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)>

Why won't you just tell us where you got it from? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 02:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Berkshires has now restored that material nine times with that account, and an anon once (possibly unconnected), so I've removed it again, along with the Weitz quote that it's there to counter. There's now no need to restore it. I like the Weitz quote because it provides a much-needed positive view of Kastner, compared to the rest of the lead -- the court case, the assassination. When I have more time, I may restore it with an additional sentence about how opinion varies regarding what Kastner did, describing one of the other views. I don't have time to do that right now though, so I'm parking it here in the meantime:

"Israeli historian Yechiam Weitz writes that, in so doing, "[w]ith his own two hands Kasztner saved more Jews than any Jew before him or since."

SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks<22:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berkshires (talk • contribs)

Spelling of his name

I could not find a discussion of "Kastner" versus "Kasztner", so I can't offer proof of either as being correct. It appears that "Kastner" is a moderately common German name and that "Kasztner" is the Hungarian variant. In Hungarian it would matter because "sz" is pronounced like English "s" whereas a lonely "s" is pronounced like "sh". Randolph Braham (author of the definitive study of the Holocaust in Hungary) uses "Kasztner", but Yehuda Bauer uses "Kastner". The Library of Congress catalogue lists a book of "Kasztner, Rezső Rudolf" titled "Der Kastner-Bericht über Eichmanns Menschenhandel in Ungarn", which has both spellings in the same bibliographic record. We should give both spellings in the header of the article. --Zero^talk 01:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, his original name was Kasztner, which he rendered in Hebrew using samech (corresponding to the Hungarian pronunciation of "sz"), which back-transliterates into English as "s". That explains how both versions arose. This is not important. --Zero^talk 06:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I heard from a member of the family that Kasztner is correct and Kastner incorrect. Hecht (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not just about his surname. His entry in the Hungarian Wikipedia is Kasztner Rezső. This should be indicated in the first line here (I have to look up the style). I also question whether the page name should be the Anglicized version. Citing English-language books is copying their editors' decisions and not necessarily definitive here. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It is standard practice in the English wikipedia to use givenname-familyname order for names, but I never saw a good case for using the anglicized or germanized spellings. Lots of English sources use the correct spellings Rezső and Kasztner. I propose renaming the article to Rezső Kasztner and adopting those spellings throughout. I'll write this proposal below, please reply there. Zero^talk 12:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to rename article

His name was not Rudolf Kastner. This is a Germanized version of the name that some English sources have adopted. His real name was Kasztner Rezső, which is a perfectly normal Hungarian name. This is easy to prove and I can bring many sources if anyone doubts it. I also don't believe that WP:COMMONNAME dictates use of the incorrect version, since the correct version is very common in English and more so in scholarly sources. However, since I think the style manual tells us to put the given name first, I propose renaming the article to Rezső Kasztner and adopting those spellings throughout. Please comment. Zero^talk 12:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That fine with me, Zero. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Ihud party and Mapai

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mapai#Ihud_party regarding possible error in this article where it is stated "the Ihud party, later known as Mapai".--Brenont (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rudolf Kastner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120913063847/www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/18.3/maoz.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/18.3/maoz.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rudolf Kastner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010717082112/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/19.1/bilsky.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/19.1/bilsky.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071001082333/http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article271855.ece to http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article271855.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Changing article name

As agreed in Archive 1 but somehow never executed, I plan to move this article to the correct name Rezső Kasztner after waiting a day for objections. The reason is that "Kastner" is not a Hungarian name but rather the Germanised version of the correct Hungarian spelling. Moreover WP:COMMONNAME is not a objection since the correct spelling is very common in the professional English literature on this person. As for the name "Rudolf", although it is used in Hungary it is not the same as his original first name Rezső. There is no doubt that he used it sometimes, though. See here for quick confirmation of Kastner versus Kasztner. Search "Kasztner" at Google scholar for a large number of hits. "Israel" was his Hebrew first name and I don't know if he was given it at birth or took it later. Also see his page at the Hungarian wiki (which uses the standard Hungarian name ordering) and his page at the Hebrew wiki to check that his family name written in Hebrew matches how Kasztner is pronounced in Hungarian but not how Kastner would be pronounced. Zero^talk 19:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, executing. Zero^talk 04:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@zero0000 Rudolf Kastner at Wikimedia commons should be changed too. (I'm new at this, so won't attempt on my own) Hydromania (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

12,000 people a day?

Are you serious?

Can't even find this number in the source [2] you posted.

But even logistically this sounds completely impossible to me.

At that time, summer 1944, the Nazis had already much more serious problems with the war than killing jews just for fun and expenses.

No jew who had the money to flee was at that time still in Europe. The only thing that makes therefor sense is deportation for forced labor all around the Reich.

In my opinion, the 800.000 figure is a Sowjet propaganda myth. Because you can kill 8.000 to 13.000 a day, but not burn them in that time.

Why do you still operate with such exorbitant numbers, if even the Auschwitz administration has admitted, that figures of the past were totally exaggerated?

Stop using the Holocaust as propaganda. Show some respect for those jews who really died in that war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.114.202.121 (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

About the blog entry entitled "The Kastner Affair" published at www.jewishhistory.org website and used as a source (https://www.jewishhistory.org/the-kastner-affair/)

The blog entry written by Berel Wein on www.jewishhistory.org website is hardly of any value that could be described as reliable historical source. It can rather be described as "story told to children by a grandfather at the fireplace during long winter evening". Not that it is false. It just is not a reliable source. It, itself, does not use any pointers to historical sources. I am sure that other sources recognized by Academia exist. Therefore, it should not be used as a source in Wikipedia articles.

Also, the sentence "[...] Hungary's Jews were deported to the gas chambers at Auschwitz [...]" makes no sense. One cannot be deported to a gas chamber. However, it could be successfully argued that be one can be "deported to Auschwitz". Although, even this not exactly precise enough for a serious Wikipedia article. One can be "deported to a country" but, not to a place (town or camp, in this case). Certainly, one cannot be "deported to the gas chamber". Therefore, in my opinion, this should be changed to something like "[...] Hungary's Jews were sent to the death camp at Auschwitz [...]". And if these Hungarian Jews were all sent to their death in gas chambers at or, shortly after, arrival and, at a rate of 12000 people a day, an appropriate source should be presented as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FA48:6EDA:1C10:1C86:B9A5:3549:276D (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

confused

" caught by the Hungarian underground police." "the other two were brought to Kasztner" who caught them and turned them to Kasztner? contradicted by other wiki entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.191.14 (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Date of Birth

If anyone is interested he was born on 14 APRIL 1906. Ancestry is not accepted for citations: https://www.ancestry.co.uk/family-tree/person/tree/31339708/person/26048691749/facts GrimRob (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)