Template talk:Righteous Among the Nations

Order

I question the order of articles featured in the template. My own suggestion is that the links be placed in alphabetical order and it was with this in mind that I made my edit. It was never my intention to "make work". I should point out that there was no "removed link".

As it is there appears to be no rhyme or reason concerning the overall order. What is described as the "order of importance" places The Holocaust twelfth of thirteen!

I think listing "countries as per number of Righteous" is a bit odd, as if one deserves mention before another. And why is it that Croatians and Norwegians are listed as "Croatian Righteous" and "Norwegian Righteous", instead of Croatian Righteous Among the Nations and Norwegian Righteous Among the Nations? 99.242.171.73 (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest, if you like your ideas so much, go to the main article first and move its sections around the way you like them, in alphabetical order. I doubt you’ll be able to convince anybody though. And yes, you are “making work”. The Righteous were usually Christians, however, you have removed the internal link to Christian ethics twice already, which is highly disruptive. Please stop. Christian ethics were guiding the Righteous --Poeticbent talk 22:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I never removed Christian ethics from the list as you've now twice accused me of doing. In both my edits [1][2] Christian ethics is listed fourth (between Budapest Glass House and Croatian Righteous Among the Nations), just as one would expect when arranging the list in alphabetical order.

I recognize that you created the template, so wonder if you'd explain how you came up with what you've described as "order of importance". The template refers to lists and articles on people, organizations, events and religion. While it is difficult to compare one to the other, I don't think it right that The Holocaust appears twelfth of thirteen, nor do I see the sense in placing Yad Vashem, which, after all, bestows the Righteous Among the Nations title, eleventh. Again, given the range of topics, I think the links are best placed in alphabetical order.

I understand that a third opinion might be of value and so will post a request. 99.242.171.73 (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but this highly contentious idea of putting everything in alphabetical order made me miss the link to Christian ethics, which was stuck rather oddly between two disparate countries. I would have never looked for it there. Alphabetical order makes no sense. Please go to Righteous Among the Nations article and see the order there. I did not create this template “out of thin air” and I don’t own it, nor do I want to be constantly forced to go back and deal with unilateral changes. We can discuss the order of remaining links here without edit warring. --Poeticbent talk 01:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

When placed in alphabetical order, Christian ethics doesn’t fall between “two disparate countries”, but between Budapest Glass House and Croatian Righteous Among the Nations. Not only is Budapest not a country, the subject of the article is a building. What’s more, it is not known as “Budapest Glass House”, but simply Glass House (as is indicated by the actual title of the article: Glass House (Budapest)). Finally, the connection the article has with the Righteous Among the Nations (not mentioned in the article), rests with Carl Lutz, a Swiss diplomat.

The issue of nationality is also raised by the link to Twentieth convoy, which you’ve included as “Belgian Twentieth convoy”. The Twentieth convoy was, in the words of the Wikipedia article, “a Jewish prisoner transport in Belgium organized by the Germans during World War II”. It was quite obviously not at Belgian transport.

You’ve suggested that I study the order in the Righteous Among the Nations article. Though I am in no way disputing their presence in the template, I note that the article contains no references to: Twentieth convoy, Glass House (Budapest), Christian ethics, List of Righteous Among the Nations by country, and Rescuers assisting Jews during the Holocaust.

When you suggest I look at the “order” in the article, I can only assume you mean “Count of the Righteous Among the Nations by country” – which, obviously, does not contain Seven Laws of Noah, Yad Vashem, and The Holocaust.

This leaves us with Polish Righteous Among the Nations, Croatian Righteous Among the Nations, Norwegian Righteous Among the Nations, and Rescue of the Danish Jews. As all appear under the “Notes” section, it is to the order of the respective nationalities that I assume you’ve been referring. Fair enough, though I will point out that “Rescue of the Danish Jews” is an article about an event and is obviously not an article on Danes recognized as Righteous Among Nations.

This leaves us with the Polish Righteous Among the Nations, Croatian Righteous Among the Nations and Norwegian Righteous Among the Nations. As I’ve written above, I don’t think it correct that these articles have been placed above The Holocaust and Yad Vashem in “order of importance”. Likewise, I don’t think an article on a building in Budapest is more important that one on the Seven Laws of Noah.

Again, I recognize that what is being compared here are articles on groups individuals, events, a structure, a prisoner transport, Judaism, Christianity and the body responsible for bestowing the title Righteous Among the Nations. How arrange such a broad spectrum of topics? As it is not possible to arrange these articles chronologically, I see alphabetical order as the only alternative. I acknowledge that you think otherwise.

At no point have I suggested that you created this template “out of thin air”. I have, however, asked after the thinking behind the order.

It was never my intention to edit war – indeed I waited for a response to my initial queries and comments. After 24 hours and no response, I decided to restore the template to alphabetical order. You'll note that I have let your reversion of my edit stand.

I look forward to your response to my queries and observations, and hope for input from third-parties. 99.242.171.73 (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we're communicating and am quite impressed with your analysis. This template is inspired of course by the article Righteous Among the Nations - with one of its main features being the large table listing the Righteous per their country of origin - with Poland appearing in the first line, Netherlands in the second, France in the third and so on. My intention was to hotlink the existing articles in the same order which I called the order of importance (table only). I was limited by the lack of many such articles as well. That's how I ended up listing Twentieth convoy instead of nonexistent Belgian Righteous Among the Nations and Glass House (Budapest) instead of nonexistent Hungarian Righteous Among the Nations. I wanted to mention at least the first countries listed in that table and admit that I was forced to make a few arbitrary decisions. There's no Danish Righteous Among the Nations article and no French Righteous Among the Nations so I couldn't list them here. You say, no "one deserves mention before another". That's an arbitrary thought. For example, there were two (2) Righteous in Brazil. If you believe that Brazil ought to be mentioned at the very top of that table in "alphabetical order", why don't you try to convince the community to reformat that table in that order? Or maybe, you'd prefer the table to be deleted since "listing 'countries as per number of Righteous' is a bit odd" according to your initial statement? I don't think so.

This is a very quick exchange of notes which resulted in some unfortunate foreshortenings. When I was referring to the order of importance I meant the number of Righteous, and not the hotlinks to Holocaust, Yad Vashem, Seven Laws of Noah and so on. I have no problem listing the Holocaust right under the main article if that is justified. Template:The Holocaust however is quite extensive already and in my opinion should only be supplemented with the Template:Righteous when needed. - Like true book editors, we need to make decisions here other than putting everything in alphabetical order. Nobody does it that way in the real world, so please, try to rearrange the links for me here in a way that makes sense to you, but other than alphabetically. --Poeticbent talk 16:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The table in the Righteous Among the Nations article is set up in such a way that it permits the user to view the Righteous Among the Nations by country in order of number per state or in alphabetical order (it defaults to the former). While this flexibility is very convenient for the reader, it is in no way reflective of an “order of importance”. Indeed, Yad Vashem confers no such thing and provides no list according to count, rather their statistical list is presented alphabetically.

I do think it incorrect to list according to number of Righteous. And, yes, I don’t think that one nationality or ethnic group deserves mention over another. How to rate such a thing? You suggest according to number of Righteous. Another might suggest that the number saved is more important, but as Yad Vashem states, “These figures [the number of Righteous Among the Nations - per Country & Ethnic Origin] are not necessarily an indication of the actual number of Jews saved in each country, but reflect material on rescue operations made available to Yad Vashem.” A third might suggest that the Dutch be placed first, as a greater percentage of their population has been recognized. Furthermore, if we rely on count to determine “order of importance” where do we place the Danes, whose Underground members asked to be commemorated as a single unit. Under your “order of importance”, the Danes are ranked 24th, when they might just as well be in the top three. I'm sorry, but I find the whole idea of an "order of importance" rather distasteful.

I cannot agree that Twentieth convoy, an article on a Nazi-organized transport in any way serves to replace a “nonexistent Belgian Righteous Among the Nations”. Likewise, Glass House (Budapest) can in no way fill in for a “nonexistent Hungarian Righteous Among the Nations” – and, as I’ve pointed out, the Glass House article relates to the actions of a single Swiss national (one of 44 Swiss Righteous), not a Hungarian.

I don't follow your statement concerning alphabetical order in "the real world"; indices are traditionally presented in this manner. However, while I don’t see that Template:The Holocaust should be supplemented by Template:Righteous as you suggest, its use of category divisions could provide an idea as to how one might organize this particular template. I will give the matter some thought. In the meantime, it is my hope that others may contribute to this discussion.

Nearly a full day has elapsed since my unfulfilled request for a third opinion. I wonder how you might feel if we make a request for comment? Alternatively, we might ask post an informal request for comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism, Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel and Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish History under the scope of which Righteous Among the Nations falls. Do let me know what you think. 99.242.171.73 (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

“In the real world”, when dealing with a collection of articles written around the same subject (i.e. the Righteous Among the Nations) editors decide how to arrange them for publishing, be it for a Home Page, a book of collected essays, an annual or a magazine, with the Table of Contents similar to any Wikipedia template (i.e. Template:Righteous). I'm asking, what kind of alphabetical, historical, numerical or perhaps readibility order would be most user-friendly in such a case? Template:The Holocaust for example, is not arranged alphabetically and honestly I don't get the sense of a strong underlying logic in it either. Try to imagine yourself arranging mere twelve articles like a library catalogue, can you? I can't. Your example, the listing of Righteous "per Country & Ethnic Origin" from www1.yadvashem.org is convincing only because these are the figures not articles, and still, they are fitted with a disclosure. In fact the same portal offers a collection of active links to pages of interest under the title On-line Exhibitions and no “alphabetical order” is assumed. Perhaps, you would prefer to have this template preformatted with an automatic feature similar to that of the main article’s table, switching the titles in two different ways on demand? Maybe that would satisfy your sense of fairness? At this point however, a new request for an impartial comment would probably be a good idea. --Poeticbent talk 02:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

I hope I can help you two with a third opinion. Sorry it took long ;)

My suggestion:

• Seperate into three groups: 1) general items, 2) specific groups and events per country, 3) monuments and memorials.
• Make entries short, this will make the list oversightable (it currently is not). Ideally entries should be on one line.
• Remove Chrstian ethics from the list, not mentioned in main article. No obvious apparent connection (not for me anyway).

Example:

General

• Main Article
• The holocaust
• Seven Laws of Noah

Groups and events (abc)

• List per country
• Rescuers assisting Jews
• Belgian Twentieth Convoy
• Croatian Righteous
• Norwegian Righteous
• Polish Righteous
• Rescue of Danish Jews

Monuments and memorials (abc)

• Glass House
• Yad Vashem

Will monitor this page for any comments. Greetings, Species8473 (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My thanks for your contribution. After some reflection, it seems to me that a move toward consensus might be made by first recognizing the division already in place. As I understand the intention, after the link to the “Main Article” we have seven links concerning the Righteous according to country, followed by a wide-range of articles related to the topic. I suggest that we insert a subheading, and have the two groups trade places.

I also suggest, that Twentieth convoy (a Nazi-operated transport), Glass House (Budapest) (a building) and Rescue of the Danish Jews (an event) be removed per my comments above, and the fact that they were included only for lack of articles on Belgian, Hungarian and Danish Righteous Among the Nations.

I suggest that a link to the Danish resistance movement be added as its members have been recognized by Yad Vashem as a single unit (per their request). For obvious reasons, the Chinese Righteous Among the Nations artice should also be included.

While I recognize that the actions of many Christian Righteous were guided by their faiths, I acknowledge Species8473’s observation that there is no mention of the Righteous (nor Jews, nor The Holocaust) in Christian ethics. For this reason, I suggest this link also be dropped.

I suggest the template might be reorganized in the following manner:

General

• Main article
• The Holocaust
• Rescuers assisting Jews during the Holocaust
• Seven Laws of Noah
• Yad Vashem

Nationalities & groups

• List of Righteous per country
• Chinese Righteous
• Croatian Righteous
• Danish resistance movement
• Norwegian Righteous
• Polish Righteous

99.242.171.73 (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record. There's no mention of "the Righteous" even once in the (157 kilobytes long) article The Holocaust (except under See also), but the link to the Holocaust is featured prominently enough in the new proposals from above and for a very good reason of course. However, the link to Christian ethics is being removed with numbing repetitiousness even though the Righteous themselves, to use the rationale of User:Species8473, had "no obvious apparent connection" to Seven Laws of Noah along the lines of their own religious and ethical guidelines. Needless to say, I'm increasingly tired of having to oppose the systemic bias plaguing this discussion. --Poeticbent talk 03:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Let’s set the record straight, the link to Christian ethics, has “not been removed with numbing repetitiousness”. In fact, though I’ve twice been accused of doing so, it has never been removed. Rather, amongst the fourteen posts in this discussion, two recommend that it be dropped.

Again, the Christian ethics article features not one mention of Jews or The Holocaust. Likewise, Christian ethics is not mentioned in the "Main article", Righteous Among the Nations; in fact, out of all the articles featured in the template, it appears in only one, the Seven Laws of Noah (and even then it is not in relation to actions during the The Holocaust, nor in conjuction with Righteous Among the Nations). Further to this, the Righteous Among the Nations article begins by describing Righteous Among the Nations “… a term used in Judaism to refer to non-Jews who abide by the Seven Laws of Noah…” Likewise, The Holocaust is mentioned in the second sentence (‘’… to describe non-Jews who risked their lives during the Holocaust…’’), and three more times within the text of what is, after all, a fairly short article (472 words).

That said, in the interest of reaching a consensus, I’m not opposed to dropping Seven Laws of Noah, nor am I in any way inflexible regarding the inclusion of Christian ethics. Poeticbent, you’ll note that in the analysis with which you were impressed, I do not suggest that Christian ethics be dropped. Again, I am aware that Christian ethics guided many of the Righteous, but recognize Species8473 ‘s observation that the connection is not made readily apparent to those being introduced to the topic.

Poeticbent, you write of a “systemic bias plaguing this discussion”, I see none. Rather, I see a real effort beng made to reach a consensus. With this goal in mind, might you have a suggestion as to how the template might be reformatted? 99.242.171.73 (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

With not mentioned in main article I actually meant that Christian ethics were not referred to in the Righteous Among the Nations article. I referred to that as main article as it's linked to as that in the template we are discussing. Both the Seven Laws of Noah and holocaust are referred to in the Righteous Among the Nations article. According to that article, people that do not follow the Jewish religion, but do live by the Seven Laws of Noah can be referred to as Righteous among the Nations. And on Christian ethics being removed from the article, I have checked the diffs, and User:99.242.171.73 indeed never did. All he did was giving it another place in the list 12 I think the template has been greatly improved, keep up the good work! Species8473 (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My proposal

Even though the Template:Righteous seems to be improving, the more I think about the coverage of the entire subject, the more doubts I have about the outcome. For example, our article the List of Righteous among the Nations by country is a collection of arbitrarily selected names out of 22,211 men and women[3] most of whom are absent from that list. The so called list is not a list but a sampler with whomever wants to add a new name to it without as much as a stub for verifiability. That’s not good enough and the list should be renamed accordingly. By the same token, even if the actual life stories of the rescuers are most captivating, the missing articles make any attempt at fair coverage impossible. We’re limited by what we have, which is a hodgepodge of articles already existing. When you say: "I don’t think that one nationality or ethnic group deserves mention over another," you depart from the fact that these are not Yad Vashem depositions, but our in-house resources.

Anyhow, I included my own proposal to the right which is a working copy reflective of my own sense of limitations, nonetheless, offering a selection of useful internal links. Please take a look, and feel free to change it if my proposal appeals to you at all. I replaced the link to Christian ethics with a more appropriate Righteousness. Cheers, Poeticbent talk 20:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Poeticbent’s decision to include “Famous individuals” is a good one. My only suggestion is to place Feng Ho between Damaskinos and Lutz – the list is otherwise in alphabetical order.

Similarly, I suggest that articles in the first section be placed in alphabetical order, while making the Righteous Among the Nations article (as “Main article”) first. While I the recognize that the issue of alphabetization has been a sticking point, I do recommend that the first section be so organized (Main article. The Holocaust, Rescuers assisting Jews during the Holocaust, Righteousness, Seven Laws of Noah, Yad Vashem).

Poeticbent, am I correct in thinking that the links found under the “Selected topics” section are organized according to the table in the Righteous Among the Nations article? 99.242.171.73 (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• As suggested, I placed the articles featured in the first two sections in alphabetical order (see right), while making the Righteous Among the Nations article as 'Main article'. I also removed Glass House from the list as per earlier comment made by User:99.242.171.73, because its only connection with the main subject of the template rested with Carl Lutz already mentioned in section 'Individuals'. I followed the suggestion made by User:Species8473 and kept the entries short, each fitting into one line. The list of selected topics in the third section is organized according to table featured in the main article, as rightfully noted by User:99.242.171.73. Since these where the last working comments with no further objections to this draft from involved editors, I pasted the template into Main Space. Thanks. It looks like the TfD nomination is not going to fly anyway. --Poeticbent talk 14:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the new template is an improvement over the last. A minor suggestion: would “Nations and groups” not be a more accurate subheading than “Selected topics”?

I concluded my previous post by asking whether the order of the final section is based on the table included in Righteous Among the Nations because I continue to object strongly to the use of this default ranking in determining an "order of importance". Indeed, I think it pretty clear that I’ve never wavered in this stance, so won't repeat the reasons behind my opinion here. I have suggested that alphabetical order be used, an opinion shared by Species8473, who kindly responded to the request for a third opinion.

On related matters, I continue to think it incorrect that Twentieth convoy, an article on a Nazi-organized and run prisoner transport (which features no mention of the Righteous Among the Nations) be used to represent the Belgian Righteous. On the other side, while I recognize considerable overlap with Feng-Shan Ho, I believe that the article on the Chinese Righteous Among the Nations should be included.

I recognize that we remain stuck in our opinions over these matters, and so will ask for help at the relevant WikiProject pages. 99.242.171.73 (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Righteous

Template:Righteous has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. —  _{Wiki11790  talk}   05:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

There exists disagreement concerning the order of Righteous Among the Nations by country, the inclusion of Twentieth convoy in lieu of an article on the Belgian Righteous Among the Nations, and the absence of a link to Chinese Righteous Among the Nations. The discussion begins under "Order" and continues under "My proposal". 99.242.171.73 (talk) 14:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• However, since the article Chinese Righteous Among the Nations is written about just two individuals, one of whom Feng-Shan Ho is already featured here under ‘Famous individuals’ and the second, credited with sheltering one girl from relocation, the proposed new link is redundant. Not everything is meant to fit into a small template. The link to Twentieth convoy on the other hand, is about the rescue of Jews unique in European history. The rescue is what this template is about, therefore the link is more than justified. I’m disappointed with User:99.242.171.73 inflexibility and a dogged insistence of her/his own answers for everything. The order of 'Selected topics' is a basic feature of the main article. The logic of what is and is not in this template is undeniable, therefore the Request for Comment seems like an unnecessary draw on our limited resources. --Poeticbent talk 17:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above, renaming "Selected topics" "Nations and groups" is nothing more than a "small suggestion". I base this on the fact that the section concerns "Nations and groups" and the opinion that "Selected topics" could include any related topic, including The Holocaust, Rescuers assisting Jews during the Holocaust and others found at the beginning of the template. Again, this is a minor suggestion.

In my defense, this is the first time you have explained your exclusion of the Chinese Righteous Among the Nations. On this topic, I wonder whether it might be better to simply add the article, while removing that on Feng-Shan Ho. After all, the latter repeats much of the information found in the former. I add that the Chinese Righteous Among the Nations article covers both of that nationality's Righteous.

I'm not against the inclusion of the Twentieth convoy, but cannot agree that the article should be represent the Belgian Righteous. Again, the article concerns a Nazi-operated transport that ran between 1942 and 1944. While one of its 28 runs was attacked by three members of the Belgian resistance, I don't see the argument that this makes it representative of the 1,476 Begian Righteous.

While I'm sorry to learn that you are disappointed in my position, I cannot agree that I have been inflexible. I'll kindly ask you to look again at my opinions on the inclusion of Christian ethics, Seven Laws of Noah and the overall organization of the template, including the introduction of subheadings. Poeticbent, do you not agree that the template has been vastly improved through this discussion?

I respectfully submit that our major sticking point does not concern "what is and is not in this template", but the order with which you have placed the nationalities in the final section. As you know I oppose the use of the default setting in determining the order. What you have refered to as the "order of importance":

1. is not recognized by Yad Vashem;
2. is flawed in that it does not take into account the Danish resistance movement whose thousands of members requested that they be recognized as a single unit;
3. is arbitrary (Should we rate by number of Jews saved? Percentage of population involved? Again, I'm sorry but I personally find the idea of providing a ranking for such a thing distasteful.).

Thus far we have had three opinions on this matter: mine (prefering alphabetical order), yours (ranking according to number of Righteous) and Species8473 (alphabetical order). I have made a Request for Comment in the hopes of hearing more voices on this matter. Please understand that I consider this matter important and, therefore, not an "unnecessary draw on our limited resources". 99.242.171.73 (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)