This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Man Who Broke into Auschwitz article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
> The Man Who Broke Into Auschwitz is the title of an autobiographical book by the british Hero of the Holocaust Denis Avey, with Rob Broomby, published in 2011.[1] . Content Avey relates his wartime service and how he came to be held prisoner in E715A, a camp for Allied Prisoners of War adjacent to Monowitz. He describes how he exchanged uniforms with a Jewish inmate of Monowitz in order to enter Monowitz to discover more about conditions there, with a view to reporting these to the authorities after the war. He also relates how he smuggled cigarettes to another Jewish inmate Ernst Lobethal, having obtained these from Lobethal’s sister in England.. He was convinced that Ernst had died by early 1945, because he could not have survived the death marches when the camp was evacuated. He also said that after the war the authorities were not interested in his story and he kept silence for more than half a century. Eventually her did begin to disclose his story and it came to the attention of the BBC. Rob Broomby was able to trace Lobethal’s sister Susanne and her son had a copy of a video recording which her brother before his death had made for the Shoah Foundation in which he describes how Avey smuggled the cigarettes and that these cigarettes saved his life because he was able to exchange them for food and to have new soles put on his boots which enabled him to survive the death march. Criticism The Book is a best-seller and translated into many different languages. However, although Lobethal’s video confirms that Avey smuggled cigarettes to him questions have been raised as to whether Avey managed to smuggle himself into Auschwitz.<
I propose this rewrite of the article. I consider it gives a better overview of the plot structure. It makes it clear as to where the question lies. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 11:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Sceptic1954
M I have listened to parts of Avey's interview with Lyn Smith and there is no doubt in my mind that that Avey is 'Ginger'. Those, which is unfortunately most of the world, who do not have access to this, are perfectly justified in wondering whether Avey is 'Ginger', indeed I did before I heard it. I don't think you can find any 'reliable source' where the question is raised. (Whay wiki regards as a reliable source and what I might regard as a reliable source may not always be one and the same.) My rewrite will not be neutral for Wikiwatcher either, he will think it too anti-Avey because I mention the Daily Mail article.
The publishers 'Notes on Sources' addresses the Donald Watt question and there is no dispute that something Avey read comparatively recently had become a memory of the war when he gave his interview to Lyn Smith. I do think that is an important indication of his confused memory. It's more for brevity that I didn't mention it. Maybe there should be an Wiki article for this Donald Watt which we could link to. As Piotr S has rowed back a little in the latest programme I didn't mention him - he is in the Guy Walters Daily Mail article.
Speaking personally I am definitely not in the business of attacking Avey personally. I'd much rather have a go at the BBC for running it when it couldn't be substantiated. I think that sensational stories like this cloud proper understanding of the Holocaust, and their second programme acknowledges this possibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic1954 ( talk • contribs) 10:48, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Mysticumswipe I think this article needs to be treated as a BLP. In line with what you have said I have made a separate 'criticisms' section. As we are talking specifically about books here I thought this a good place to mention the similarities with Charles Coward. If you agree with my plot summary please say so, I tried to get away from the 'heroic' tone of the earlier version and be more analytic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic1954 ( talk • contribs) 10:27, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Mystichumswipe: Having looked at several editions of this book - it's been through about 8 I think, the words are not on all of them. So I've added clarification to what is in Daily Mail. So it's not sourced but I know it to be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceptic1954 ( talk • contribs) 22:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikiwatcherplease note the current ratings for this article. The ratings for Denis Avey were equivalent before I last amended that article. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 08:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
newstatesman
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Times
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The article has essentially been revised to imply that Denis Avey, the book's author, is a complete fraud. Therefore, the article also implies that the British government and the expert historians at the Imperial War Museum have been duped into awarding a British soldier one of its highest honors. It accomplishes this implication in various places with non-neutral statements such as the following:
However, none of the above are supported. First, an author's autobiography can not be redefined as an "assumed autobiography." Second, he received his award after extensive interviews with expert historians at the war museum along with the Prime Minister, and not " based solely on what he described in it," as the lead now states.
Nor is it the subject of "considerable controversy," or realistically any controversy, as only a single writer, Guy Walters, has published an article questioning the truth of Avey's account for the Daily Mail, a popular British tabloid. The article in the Daily Mail includes the opinions of Piotr Setkiewicz, past prisoners, etc. who say they cannot confirm or deny Avey accomplished that what he described, with Setkiewicz simply pointing out that breaking into or out of Auschwitz "would have been extremely risky," an obvious fact. Similar personal opinions claim that it would be hard to do and therefore was improbable. The implication of fraud by Avey is further supported by synthesizing details from the life of another author, Charles Coward, whose similar story was also questioned by doubters, although never proven to be false.
Per guidelines, such contentious material improperly sourced or supported, which effectively attacks someone's reputation, should be removed. -- Light show ( talk) 00:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
There are a host of sources other than the Daily Mail questioning Avey's claim: the Sunday Times and Frankfurter Allgemein for example. I'm not aware that anyone has impugned the integrity of the Imperial War Museum, one of their researchers Lyn Smith was doggedly defending Avey when a lot of people were questioning his testimony. that's about it. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 12:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Lightshow. As a British citizen I don't think that British Hero of the Holocaust is one of our countries highest honours. It was created by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown in 2012. I don't know the procedure for being granted the award, I do know that it was for obtaining cigarettes for Lobethal and not for anything else. I doubt that the Imperial War Museum were involved, more likely the Holocaust Education Trust were because they called for a search for more potential living recipients of the award in 2009. I can accept your objections about the Daily Mail not being 100 per cent reliable and the questions have been raised most extensively there but there are other sources which might be considered more reliable such as the Sunday Times, the Frankfuerter Allgemein. I think it reasonable to say the book is a source of considerable controversy but the use of 'purported' is confusing because it could mean that it's not by Avey or that Avey says things which are not true. As nobody contests 90 per cent of the book I don't think it should be classed as fiction, even if the title is taken from the contested 10 per cent. Quite clearly Avey received the award before thу book came out, receiving the award is described in the book. I don't think you have any COI at all, any more than do most of the readers who give it 5 star reviews on Amazon. It's absurd to say that just because you like the book you have a financial interest in it. People shouldn't be allowed to get away with saying such things on Amazon. BTW one reason I don't believe it is because I have listened to tapes of some of Avey's interviews and find them contradictory. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 08:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
synonyms: claim, lay claim, profess, pretend; I don't consider that Avey entered Monowitz but IMO its completely wrong to use this word in the article (unless quoting). It is worse to use it in a sentence which mentions the award of an honour because any accusations of 'purporting' made against Avey have not been in connection with the actions for which he received the honour. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 09:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The lead strikes me as stressing a bit too much the doubters but at least the lead sentence is okay as of now. I am however considering mentioning this on the BLP notice board. The tone has to be conservative. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 09:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
It is only as purported autobiography if it is not by the subject. Robinson Crusoe might be called a purported autobiography. The veracity of any autobiography might be questioned, here nobody questions most of the book only that part which gives rise to the title. There is enough in the lead about his claims being questioned without needing to add a confusing adjective in the first sentence, but if you wish to find a way to highlight this further there is a better way than this. I personally think there is enough in the lead and Avey is a living person.
He received the award before the book came out and before it was even written. The book was commissioned on the back of the award, not the award given on the basis of the book.
If you are going to refer to some policy please quote directly. 93.80.114.149 ( talk) 13:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC) These edits by Sceptic1954, sorry I am unable to log in at this time. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 13:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I would like to encourage editors with possible interest in improving the online sales of this book, based on our Wikipedia article, to please reveal your identity, and refrain from any further revisions to this entry with the aim of silencing dissent and independent critical thought. Thank you, Poeticbent talk 19:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Can you please specify who you mean? I reverted you twice today because you had suggested without evidence that I might have a COI. Please report that to an administrator if you think it out of order. Now I have invited you to discuss matters if you wish to revert back to your edit, please go ahead instead of making baseless and in fact absurd insinuations that I might have a COI. I think I am doing a good job on ensuring neutrality on these pages if I get attacked from both sides but if you actually looked at my edits or talk I don't see how you could begin to think I have a COI. I have plenty of emails in which I take the publishers to task for absurdities, especially their claim about the NZ soldier reported in Auschwitz in someone else's memoir. BTW is the book still in print, or has it had a second edition? I thought it was just being quietly forgotten, except by James Long.
Sceptic1954 (
talk)
19:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I gave User:Sceptic1954 a chance to honourably get out of this mess. The guy has been massaging the article since 25 September 2012, removing valid criticism and so – obviously – he is not going to stop now. However, the book in question contains glaring signs of an Auschwitz (hero story) hoax as already noted by Holocaust scholars as well as some less diplomatic literary critics in Great Britain. Of course, there's no proof of a conflict of interest in tendentious editing alone, even if that editing amounts to actually lying in edit summaries and attacking other Wikipedians in talk? – I'd say, if you're not on a payroll of the publishing house which is trying to cash in on the hot commodity, please stop goading uninvolved editors. You did NOT revert me twice today. You reverted TWO editors, me being one of them. Poeticbent talk 23:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
I stand corrected about the number of editors I reverted. I think however Lightshow would support my claim that I do not display signs of COI. Assuming him to be the earlier Wikiwatcher I amended the article on Denis Avey in the face of his objections to include all the questions about the veracity of Avey's claims. If you actually go back through all my records I was once blocked indefinitely because I argued too much that Holocaust Denial shouldn't be labelled anti-Semitic. It's not particularly relevant or valid for me to state my views on the veracity or otherwise of Avey's claim to have entered Monowitz, I would think however that they can be deduced and are completely the opposite of what you think. All I can think is that I am doing a reasonable job of defending NPOV and conservative tone on Avey-related pages if I get flak from both sides. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 23:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC) actually if you really want my views on this here they are. Avey had been making his claim to have smuggled himself into Auschwitz/Monowitz for some years but it had never been taken seriously enough to get onto the main BBC channel. When the British Hero of the Holocaust Award was announced there was an appeal to locate any further potential living recipients. At this point Rob Broomby quite brilliantly confirmed that Avey had obtained cigarettes for Lobethal. It was for this that Avey received his award. At this point someone in the BBC made the decision to give main channel exposure to his claim to have entered Monowitz and in the back of this Avey got a book contract. I think this came to be recognised within the BBC as a bad decision, but the subsequent TV programme they out out about it is as near as we are likely to get to a retraction. Yes there is a culture within the BBC which means that some people at lower levels, especially on their website, turn out sensational holocaust stories. There is also is also a similar Pavlovian programming to portray Russia in a bad light and I have several times found articles amended after I I submit complaints. The top people, the likes of John Simpson, are above this. However whilst I agree with Guy Walters that publishers cash in on incredible holocaust stories and might think there is too much in the media about Aushcwitz as compared to other atrocities I do not doubt that the Nazis were party to murdering millions of Jews. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 00:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC) So what found mean by 'an Auschwitz hoax'? As you clearly believe Treblinka was an extermination camp? You might actually find that we are in complete agreement. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 00:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding this issue. Poeticbent talk 05:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)