Talk:Reuel Abraham

"Destroyed an entire civilization"
How do you reckon the Nazis destroyed an entire civilization, when in fact they only killed some of the people involved in said civilization and many of the rest were able to regroup? Even now, quite a few Jewish landmarks in Poland have gone back to celebrating the Jewish people and Jewish culture. And they failed to destroy Polish civilization, also: Warsaw was demolished, but it was later rebuilt, and the Polish people and culture also endures. So what civilization was destroyed? Fact: 5 or 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust. Fact: there were 13 million Jews in Europe. That leaves some 7 or 8 million Jews alive, right? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * --Mbz1 (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As Mbz1 showed, the article on the Holocaust in Poland gives that exact wording. The Nazis wiped out Jewish life in Poland, which before the Holocaust was thriving. Jews represented a VERY significant proportion of the population in Poland. After the Holocaust, there were nearly none left. Today, there are still nearly none left. I would say this is the destruction of an entire civilization. The fact that Jews elsewhere were able to spit in the face of Hitler, "regroup", and build one of the most advanced and vibrant democracy in the world in Israel, does not change the fact that Polish Jewry was destroyed. Breein1007 (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to call it destroyed, call it destroyed. But that doesn't change the fact that there are, currently, some 25,000-50,000 Jews in Poland, which is admittedly bupkis compared to the antebellum population of 3,500,000. Nonetheless, Polish Jewry is not extinct. This is why I'm questioning the neutrality of the "destroyed a civilization" wording. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 04:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyhow, when WWII ended, Polish Jewry still had something like 50,000-120,000 members or adherents; almost all of those (except for a few thousand, I think) became American or Israeli Jews, and so Polish Jewish civilization continued in places like Israel and New Jersey and Brooklyn. Then, after Communism committed suicide in eastern Europe, there was a Polish Jewish resurgence - Poles with Jewish ancestry met up with ex-Soviet Jews or something, I dunno. But that leaves me unsure that a civilization was destroyed, rather than merely being badly damaged. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 04:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

IP edits reinstated
I agree with IP user 99.120.1.227 that the single-sentence mention in the SF Gate source doesn't say the subject was famous; one has to infer that from the previous sentence, and it's not a plausible inference, imo. To make that inference one would have to maintain that Reuel Abraham was/is as well-known as Sammy Davis Jr., Elizabeth Taylor and Marilyn Monroe, which is absurd.

Likewise with this edit by the IP, which removes the aish.com mention by our advice columnist friend. Interestingly, she makes the same mistake with the subject's name that the Wikipedia editor who created this article made. Our advice columnist friend gives the name "Abraham Reuel", as well. Since the article was published on 30 April, 2011, it looks to me like the relevant passage was probably "sourced" from Wikipedia, making this a circular reference. If it wasn't, then the only other reasonable explanation would be that our advice columnist friend made the same mistake as did the creator of this Wikipedia article, by misinterpreting the listing at the top of page 5 of A Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes which says, "Abraham, Reuel" at the top of the page, in a lastname-first entry for ease in navigating the book. That seems less plausible to me than the likelihood that this reverse-named Wikipedia article was itself the source. But in either case, this source is clearly not independent of A Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes. And if a source can't even get a subject's name right, I don't see how it can reasonably be deemed reliable.

I also agree with the intent of the IP's third edit. People know what the Holocaust was, and if they want details about it that's what the wikilink is for. I've reinstated these three edits, for these reasons. – OhioStandard  (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * IP proxy (a banned user?) edits were wrong.
 * Putting a red link to the book to discredit information is not the way to go. Besides the same information is supported by this source
 * Removing information from San Francisco Chronicle i s wrong, but I put a direct quote from the source for a reader to decide what the source meant. --Mbz1 (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The title of the book, A Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes, discredits it as a source? Well, yes; it does. It's not a reliable source, as multiple editors have been saying at AfD. The single-sentence, in-passing mention of in The San Francisco Chronicle does nothing to establish notability, nor does it add anything that isn't already in the other sources. I'll let it stand, however, but not with the sentence included along with it to try to suggest that Reuel Abraham was/is as well-known a household name. To try to imply that is disingenuous. I have no objection to context, but it needs to be the full context of the article, not just the one sentence that you want to use to incorrectly imply that the subject of this story is as well-known as Sammy Davis Jr., Elizabeth Taylor and Marilyn Monroe, which is absurd. I've made this edit to correct these problems, although for the sake of peace in the family I'll let the use of A Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes stand until after the AfD closes. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 05:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I have never said A Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes is not a good source, I said that proxy IP and you are trying to discredit it a good source. The name of the sources should be added only to opinions, but not to the information. It violates NPOV.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW about AfD, it has already generated more views for the article than it had for a few months, and because the article is going to be kept you have done it a great favor by nominating it to be deleted. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't nominate it for deletion. But I think you've missed the point re article views. I doubt readers who saw the AfD came away much impressed with an article that gets its putative subject's name backwards. What's unfortunate is that you seem to think I'm opposed to this article out of some dislike for its topic. My feelings are much to the contrary: Like your Wagner's first love article, this is a charming story. Also like that article, I could wish this story were true. But I don't believe the sources establish that it is, or that they even establish notability, however, and my allegiance to the goals of the encyclopedia supersedes my personal liking for the story, as was precisely the case re the Wagner story, as well. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Consolidated discussion of sources offered
The version of this article that went to AfD included just two references that actually refered to the subject of this article. The first was A Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes and the second was a "Convert to Judaism" web site that appeared (?) to have taken its narrative from that same book. This web site was quickly deleted as a reference, but while the article was at AfD some additional sources were found and proposed. – OhioStandard  (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Aish.com mention
After this article went "live" on Wikipedia, on 4 April 2010, it ricocheted around the web in the usual way, via mirrors and blogs, and even showed up on some Jewish-oriented web sites. The Wikipedia article became, in effect, a primary source for some web sites. One such occurrence may be of some interest here, because it its author specifically identifies the narrative as "little-known". A 30 April 2011 article published as Little-known facts about The Third Reich on the Jewish-oriented web site aish.com includes mention of our subject. This web article briefly made an appearance in our article as a source, but since it duplicates the reversed-order naming error of the subject that user Mbz1 made when she created this article, it appears to be a "circular reference", i.e. one derived from Wikipedia itself.

Despite its apparent uselessness as a source for that reason, its description of the story as "little-known" may be relevant to address a question that was raised at AfD about how widely published the story might be, whether in reliable sources or elsewhere. Along with our searches in English, German, and Hebrew, this description from a prominent Jewish-oriented web site of the story as "little known" would appear to answer that question.

Single-sentence mention in Chronicle
On further reflection (see above), I find I can't allow the single-sentence mention in the Chronicle to stand, and I've removed it in this edit. It adds nothing that isn't already present in the article from other sources, and its presence appears to be a kind of "Hail Mary pass" to shore up a claim to notability. A single-sentence mention does nothing to establish notability, however; its presence give a false appearance that there are three reliable sources for this story, when there's really just the one, the Miami News article. – OhioStandard  (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * You cannot allow to add neither a sourced information nor a direct quote from a reliable source? It is a strange language, to say the least.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Miami News article
No one has expressed any reservations about this 21 April 1966 article; it's the one undisputed reliable source for this story we have, and also its earliest occurrence in print that any of us have been able to find. It appears to have first been told to the press by Reuben Kahane, an ultra-orthodox Rabbi and a member of the Supreme Religious Council of Israel in the 1960s. It seems worth noting that the "20 years of penance" that the Kahane says the subject swore to would have expired roughly one year previous to this story's having been published, i.e. 20 years after V.E. day, 7 May 1945.

Among many other salient points, this article mentions the subject as having flown Junker-87 dive bombers (Stutka's in German) in support of Hitler's Panzer divisions in Europe, that before joining the Luftwaffe at age 18 he had been a member of the Nazi party and organized Hitler Youth aka. Hitler Jugend or "HJ" battalions, and that he was 41 years of age when this Miami News article was written on 21 April 1966.[5] The article also says the subject reached "sergeant-major" rank; this rank is abbreviated "Obfhr" for Oberscharführer, in German, I've since learned. The article also says the subject witnessed the brutal murder of a Rabbi, in Poland, and that this was a turning point for him. After that, the story says, he purposely dropped bombs away from their targets, tampered with detonators, and generally tried to avoid effective warfare on Germany's behalf.


 * 5. ^ If subject was 41 years of age on 21 April 1966, then he would have been born between 22 April 1924 - 21 April 1925, which would mean that he'd have joined the Luftwaffe at age 18 between 22 April 1942 - 21 April 1943, and would have been 20 or 21 years old on V.E. Day, 7-8 May 1945.

– OhioStandard  (talk) 08:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

A Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes
Some have opined at AfD that A Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes is a reliable source for the purpose of this article. I disagree. As multiple editors have observed at the deletion discussion, its status as a book of anecdotes does not inspire confidence. It's no scholarly work at all, but a folksy collection of flattering stories about Judaism that the publisher describes as, "A collection of humorous, sentimental and instructive stories about both prominent and relatively unknown Jewish personalities from biblical times to the present." As I wrote at the AfD, it's the sort of quasi-religious inspirational book that some parents choose to read to their kids before bedtime, rather than a work of history or biography.

Likewise, in what appears to be a publisher's blurb for the author's next book, A Treasury of Jewish Inspirational Stories, the Anecdotes book is also mentioned:


 * As in his previous best-selling volume, A Treasury of Jewish Anecdotes, Epstein shows us his remarkable skill of gathering tales and his talent for retelling them in a voice that speaks clearly to a contemporary audience. These are not stories of purported miracles. Nor are they always verifiable. Some of the stories are folktales, others are exaggerations. Some are biographical, others are snapshots from history. But all have a singular theme and goal: renewed faith in divine guidance or in the human capacity to do good deeds. (emphasis added)

So the character of the book as a whole presents a problem, a book of anecdotes after all, but so does the particular story it includes that's currently used in this article. I don't have a copy of the Anecdotes book, and page 255 isn't accessible to me via Google Books, either, but user GabrielF reports at AfD that the page lists a "February 1970 issue of Jewish Digest, pages 47-48" as being the book's source for the Abraham story.

Unfortunately no one has been able to turn up a copy of that issue of Jewish Digest; the magazine went out of print at some unknown date. If the magazine was anything like the website (owned by the same publishing group) that describes itself as its "successor publication", however, it wouldn't be responsible to consider it a reliable source to support, at one remove, the presentation in the Anecdotes book.

For example, the current "successor publication" website includes, as I mentioned at AfD, a story entitled, Science Confirms What Rabbis Understood: Jewish Practice Makes You Happier and More Fulfilled. The problem is that this assertion of fact is not supported by any scientist, or by any objective statement of fact in the accompanying article. If the publishing group's ardently pro-Jewish orientation causes them to take such license with the facts as this, it seems unlikely that their predecessor publication, Jewish Digest, was any more objective in what it presented as factual reporting. – OhioStandard  (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 3rd opinion. That's not a problem because the story was also supported by other sources. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * That's irrelevant; if an unreliable source prints one story, some of the details of which are supported elsewhere, it doesn't suddenly become reliable for anything and everything, even other parts of the same story. (Just as errors in one story don't permanently disqualify the NYT.) Ohiostandard's point about the book, specifically the blurb about lack of verifiability, is valid; we should include only those details which are supported by reliable sources. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not telling that source was unreliable and therefore should be discarded. But indeed, many sources frequently used in WP articles (including books by experts and peer reviewed publications in scientific journals) can be challenged, one way or another. Therefore, we need multiple sources. And there are indeed multiple sources that support the story. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Multiple sources would be good too, if they exist, but we can't count Anecdotes as one of them because it's not reliable (and we can't decide to accept an unreliable source purely in the interest of having multiple sources). We do have Miami News, but no one's managed to turn up any other sources that discuss the story in detail. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Article needs to be rewritten
I wanted to wait a bit after the AFD to bring this up, but the article as it stands is a sustantial copyright violation in that is a very close paraphrase of the Miami News Article. Just a heads up, --Nuujinn (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've rewritten the article. I removed the Anecdotes as a source given the discussion above--given the textual parallel my supposition is that it is based on the Miami News article, and cannot be considered a reliable source. I have my concerns about the Miami News article--the source is the NANA wire service, and we don't know where it was written or who wrote it, but wire service articles are generally considered reliable. I also moved the SFGate ref to support something it can support, but note that it contains only a passing mention. Finding some additional reliable sources would be a good thing. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)