Talk:Schindlerjuden

Why Jews only?
Why did he only save jews? Where there only jews in that concentration camp or did he do a selection, and then why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.156.198 (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * maybe because Jews were being visibly targeted? Who knows, its in history. We cannot interview him to find what his thought process was. Ottawakismet (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Because it never happened its fictional 78.148.29.22 (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Because it never happened it fiction 78.148.29.22 (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * According to this page he also saved many Polish people : http://www.schindlerjews.com/page_7.htm

Useless Article
This whole article seems to be an extension of the Schindler's List movie and has almost nothing about the Schindlerjuden. Meishern (talk) 06:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * this article presupposes everyone has seen the film, and neglects basic details, I added some basic outline to improve it. Ottawakismet (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Odd Links
Why does the link that says it shows the original list of Schindlerjuden instead go to a page where you can buy the DVD? Very sick marketing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.193.43 (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Translating the job names

 * Names of the type Xges. (with fullstop), e.g. Werkzeugschlosserges. :: Google Translate says that "Werkzeugschlosser" means "toolmaker" and "Gesell" means "fellow" or "journeyman"; does "Xges." mean "journeyman X", or "X ' s mate" (in the factory job sense, NOT in the sexual sense!!!), or what? I have heard of the jobs "fitter" and "fitter's mate" :: what would those be in German?Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Ruba Beck or Kuba Beck
I corrected the spelling of Ruba Beck to Kuba Beck. It appears to have been incorrectly transcribed. While I do recall seeing it transcribed that way on other sources, this is is incorrect and his name was spelled Kuba, with a K. He went to my synagogue and I knew him personally. While that is not enough reliable, here is an article from the USA Today about his death, which includes a date of birth that corresponds with the individual in question and lists his name as Kuba. We can add that as a citation if need be, but for a simple transcription error, I'm not sure that's necessary. Smartyllama (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Invalid dates in list
The list includes these invalid dates: 1909-3-39, 1920-40-20, 1928-0-9, 1919-0-10, 1912-1-0, 1900–12, 1923-11-31. The years look reasonable, but the months and / or days certainly not. When I compare those dates with the photographs, I see that the original also uses 1923-11-31. Others had a missing day or month in the original. Fixed most, added comments to those which cannot be fixed. --Stefan Weil (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Religion and nationality abbreviations
There should be a legend of what particular abbreviations stand for. For example 'Sch', 'PSV' 'RD' 'Ung' 'Stls' 'Dt' 'Bt.' 'Tsch'. It would be quite nice if the writer of these abbreviations could at least tell me what they mean, since I'm really curious, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.168.124 (talk) 07:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Schindlerjuden. 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/20110721233447/http://www.its-arolsen.org/en/help_and_faq/sample_documents/index.html to http://www.its-arolsen.org/en/help_and_faq/sample_documents/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Pointy edit
Following 's withdraw of a poor AFD nomination, he has removed the list of names. ,, , and may you comment on this? I believe the content, if it is removed, should only be altered when the article is expanded. Thoughts?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The entry section of "List" probably can (and should) be kept after minor editing. The list itself (and the translations of occupations from the German) can not; I do intend to go to either an RfC or DRN if the local consensus disagrees with me. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 16:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I will note there was some support for removal (or teanswiki to wiki source) of the list in the AfD. While I do not have a strong opinion on the list itself, it probably should go.Icewhiz (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not happy with User:power~enwiki continuing to make major edits to this article, after he is aware that his points of view are not unanimously shared by the community. That having said, I am sure the list is not very important, but can be found in reliable sources, so could be kept. The best solution would probably be to have an external link to the list on some reliable source outside Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I am neutral on keeping it, and do not want my opinion to be interpreted as in favor of deletion. Debresser (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

As nobody has given any arguments in support of keeping the list here (it is linked in the External links section), I am removing it again. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not consider the list itself important for Wikipedia as it is easily accessible in other web pages, although it maybe was useful for English speaking users as (probably the sole?) translation of the list into English. However I too would like to warn User:power~enwiki of making such significant changes in articles without community consensus. One-day discussion is NO discussion and there was no need for speed, as the article violated no laws. The hastily deletion of the description of the list was unreasonable and irrational, I'm glad this was reverted. --Honzula (talk) 09:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of the list
It's not WP:POINT-y, it's remedying a blatant violation of WP:NOT. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 16:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

ADDITION I am a family member of two Schindlerjuden. After their son-in-law died, I learned much more about their back story, and I was motivated to add the full text of Schindler's List to the article. On it very front page, WikipediA calls itself "The Free Encyclopedia" -- from that moniker, I infer that encyclopedic data is appropriate for WikipediA.

I know countless members of my family, members of their houses of worship, their friends and families, and others who have used the actual listing of Schindlerjuden on WikipediA to learn more about their ancestors and themselves. I am certainly one of them.

I hope and pray that Power~Enwiki will not be greatly offended when I ask for a reversion to include the entirety of Schindler's List on WikipediA.

Please, then, may I ask for that reversion to include the entirety of Schindler's List on WikipediA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay.wind (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia is not a memorial, nor is it a collection of raw data. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you explain how those apply here? This doesn't appear to be added with the intent to memorialize. Seraphim System ( talk ) 19:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If they want to use Wikipedia to "learn more about their ancestors", it seems like they want to use the site as a memorial. Including the entire (90KB) list is fairly clearly indiscriminate from my point of view. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 20:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

RFC: Inclusion of the entire list
Should the entirety of "Schindler's List" be included in the article Schindlerjuden? power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I oppose including it in the article. It's excessive in the context of an encyclopedia article. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:17, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Unsourced (no source cited support this AFAICT) BLP/BDP vio (including DOB). The list itself belongs on Wikisource. If it is available externally - we should link to it (external links or inline) - but this level of detail is excessive, and fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE.Icewhiz (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. The list is very notable, and relevant to this article in particular, enough to merit inclusion despite some minor issues. I agree lack of references is an issue, so I added one. I agree that adding the list to Wikisource is a good idea whether or not the list is kept on this page. Linguistical (talk) 06:25, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose  per nom and Icewhiz. Although the list is important, it should be kept on Wikisource per VP:Indiscriminate. Just a list of a thousand non-potable people with names, etc. does not have sufficient encyclopedic value. The BLP violation is also a concern. Catrìona (talk) 13:19, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per Catrìona. Excessively long. Peter K Burian (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Summoned by bot. Oppose per nominator. Too long to add to this page. Meatsgains (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended discussion
I'm on the fence. Icewhiz raises an important issue about needing a source. Something like this would have to be sourced, but I think it is otherwise not detrimental to the article. It should be added to Wikisource in any case, but I think there are better things to do then delete an unobtrusive table from a start class article that doesn't have much content. And the content about occupations, if it can be verified, is of encyclopedic value. This is the type of thing readers are interested in now and more detailed work is being done about less studied areas of the Holocaust and trying to develop a more robust understanding of the details of the camp system, many parts of which are still poorly understood. It is detailed, but I don't think it is the type of content that is covered by WP:INDISCRIMINATE Seraphim System  ( talk ) 06:33, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the list is interesting. However, I do not think we should be hosting 1000+ item lists that are primary in nature. I don't feel strongly about this in this particular article (lack of content overall, list has some value) - there is no great harm if the list remains - however the better course of action in my mind is providing a very clear link to wiki source and listing in our article notable (with wiki articles) individuals.Icewhiz (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)