Talk:Siegfried Lederer's escape from Auschwitz

Second sentence
The sentence Because of his Catholic faith and infatuation with Renée Neumann, a Jewish prisoner, Pestek opposed the Holocaust jarred when I read it. Can we really know that those were the two primary reasons for his opposition? Perhaps he was simply a person with a conscience, with the strength of mind and courage to act on it. His faith and his love live may well have been related, but in my experience a person's core virtues are much deeper.

I propose deleting the sentence from the lead altogether. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Echoing who suggested something similar; I reverted because the current version has an established consensus, but, of course, that can change if another consensus is reached.FWIW, I find Onceinawhile's argument not wholly unconvincing.  ——  Serial  16:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, read the article almost from top to bottom yesterday, and this was one of my few gripes. It reads funny and seems an implausible reach.  Ceoil  (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you remove that, you remove the only explanation. SarahSV (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we normally explain why people oppose crimes against humanity.
 * I would be happy to turn it around, making an indirect connection without purporting to know the primary motivators: Pestek opposed the Holocaust; he was a devout Catholic and was infatuated with Renée Neumann, a Jewish prisoner.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We do normally explain if the person was a member of the SS. SarahSV (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support OIAW's suggestion, and mention of Pestek being an SS member is already in the preceding sentence (that is, the first). ——  Serial  11:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 April 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Procedural close; filer indef blocked for page move disruption. No prejudice against any editor in good standing renominating the move request, albeit it may feel as if it was about to start snowing in here. (non-admin closure)   SN54129  17:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Siegfried Lederer's escape from Auschwitz → Escape of Siegfried Lederer from Auschwitz – I think it is more "formal" name for accounting an escape of a person. Utkarsh555 01:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose Both seem equally formal to me, but one is more concise. In general, we should prefer rearrangements to extra words like "of"; extra words make writing harder to follow, because they physically separate logically related concepts on the page.  (Of course, if extra words add more precision, then we should prefer the more precise alternative.  Such is not the case here.)  The title is of limited length, so any damage done is minimal, but that's no reason to actively substitute a lesser alternative.  Bernanke&#39;s Crossbow (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Move to ?, putting the most easily-remembered aspect at the beginning and avoiding the possessive construction (which I agree is a bit informal). That's only two characters longer than the current title. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Bernanke. The only change which might be arguable, in my view, is changing "Auschwitz" to "Auschwitz concentration camp" in line with our article title.—Brigade Piron (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - because no valid reason is given for the suggestion. ‡ El cid, el campeador  talk  14:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There's no significant difference between the current and proposed page title, nor is there a pressing (or even convincing) need to rename the page to begin with. Zhomron (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)