Talk:Raoul Wallenberg/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Raoul Wallenberg. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Count?

In Australia he is invariably referred to as Count Raoul Wallenberg. Was he a Swedish nobleman? Avalon 05:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No. From a distinguished family, but not a titled one. You can find a list of the noble families of Sweden here: http://www.geocities.com/svenskadel/

The man you are thinking of is probably Count Folke Bernadotte. --Dahlis 13:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Too much detail

I removed specific street directions to various memorials, etc.; this is an encyclopedia, not a travel guide. If somebody objects and wants to restore them, they are:

Raoul Wallenberg has streets named after him in the Israeli cities of Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa, in Earl Bales Park near Bathurst and Sheppard in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and the street adjacent to the Amtrak station in Trenton, New Jersey.
Raoul Wallenberg Park is located in Nepean, Ontario, Canada, on Viewmount Drive, just off of Merivale Road. Clarityfiend 05:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Incomprehensible

I removed this from the Official Death section as I can't quite figure out what it means and what it has to do with Wallenberg's death: "People were arrested 1953 in Budapest, tortured and forced to take on an obedient demeanor in court, accusing himself of crimes against Wallenberg. Right before his death in 1953 Stalin was planning a campaign.[1]" 'People' is (according to the article referenced) a single person. Clarityfiend 07:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal

"The Raoul Wallenberg prize of Melbourne High School, Melbourne, Australia. It includes a AU$500.00 gift from the MHS Masonic Lodge." Clarityfiend 07:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation (for Spoken Wikipedia)

I'd like to record this entry for the Spoken Wikipedia project; if anybody could nail down the pronunciation of these following names, there will be fewer names mispronounced, and I will be grateful. Thankee...

Gustav (as in "Raoul Gustav Wallenberg")
Nane (Wallenberg's neice, married to Kofi Annan)
Gerhard Schmidthuber
Pál Szalay
Paul Rusesabagina
Côte Saint-Luc

Thank you...

Standback 21:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

GA

It might be too soon for a GA review since it looks like a peer review is pending. In my view, each sentence should have a footnote (expect those in the lead section). Otherwise, how is a reviewing editor supposed to know where the information came from to be able to verify that information? The copyright material in the article footnotes needs to be delted. The footnotes in the article need to be revised to be proper footnotes. I revised footnote 5 to give you an example of what I mean. Also, if you haven't done so, you may want to go through each of these links looking for material to add to the article. This should give you a start. Once you addressed all the peer review statements, then the article may be ready for GA review. -- Jreferee 16:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

From FA Saffron: "On the other hand, traditional Kashmiri legend states that saffron first arrived sometime during the 11th and 12th centuries AD, when two foreign and itinerant Sufi ascetics, Khwaja Masood Wali and Hazrat Sheikh Shariffudin, wandered into Kashmir. The foreigners, having fallen sick, beseeched a cure for illness from a local tribal chieftain. When the chieftain obliged, the two holy men reputedly gave them a saffron crocus bulb as payment and thanks. To this day, grateful prayers are offered to the two saints during the saffron harvesting season in late autumn. The saints, indeed, have a golden-domed shrine and tomb dedicated to them in the saffron-trading village of Pampore, India. However, the Kashmiri poet and scholar Mohammed Yusuf Teng disputes this. He states that Kashmiris had cultivated saffron for more than two millennia. Indeed, such ancient indigenous cultivation is alluded to in Kashmiri Tantric Hindu epics of that time.[28]"

There is only one reference for the whole paragraph, when the paragraph comes from a single source.

From FA Barack Obama: "Fornek, Scott. "If Obama runs, I'll campaign for him, Winfrey says," Chicago Sun-Times, September 28, 2006.

There is no parenthesis for periodical listings. I also notice there are various styles used for the references for newspapers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

Copyedit #Show trial preparations 1953 in Hungary; an example of what I'm talking about:

“

Károly Szabó was April 8. 1953 captured on the street, without legal proceedings arrested, whitout leaving a trace, six months no message to his family. A Secret trial, no official record of the case or the judge's verdict is made available. After six months of interrogation, the defendants were driven to despair and exhaustion.

”

Add references to the lead and "Legend"
See also is too long; remove articles that have tangential significance to Wallenberg.
Remove unimportant links #External links or integrate them into the article as references.
Use the appropriate citation template on references ({{cite}}, {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite news}}, etc)
Remove spaces between punctuation and citation:
- Bad: blah blah. ^[1]
- Good: blah blah.^[1]
Something else I noticed, the article could use some resectioning. Consider combining several sections to create a logical sectioning along the lines of "Early life" "Holocaust" "Arrest and Death" "After Death" etc —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Impressive progress so far... —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 00:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It looks good enough to me. I think you've earned your GA status. However, don't let my absence keep you from improving the article. :) —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 21:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Bullet removal

I don't agree with it in the Memorials and Honors sections. IMO, they're lists and should be formatted as such. The transitions between sentences are non-existent and it's a bit jarring to read. Clarityfiend 16:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Clarityfiend 18:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Further suggestion

I think you are doing a great job at improving the article, Richard.

No-one has yet said anything about the external links, but I think someone will sooner or later tell you to clean them up (per WP:EXT). For example, I think we don't need to have all those links to biographies, because Wikipedia is supposed to cover that part.

Also, if you need something translated from Swedish, feel free to ask me.

Fred-Chess 00:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Switzerland

Not too many people seem to notice the chilling fact that Switzerland was actually in the business of trading Soviet refugees, who had fled to the Alp nation in order to escape oppression, for Swiss nationals, who had been criminally detained by the Soviet Union precisely for such an exchange. The fate of the refugees does not seem open for very much doubt. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hgintern (talk • contribs) 13:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

date of Wallenberg's arrest

I believe most records have the date of his arrest as January 17. The Wiki entry has it as January 7. Is this a matter of debate or just a typo?

It can't be the 7th. Per Anger met with Raoul on January 10. I have changed it to 17 under the assumption that it was a typo. --FredrikW 21:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is January 17 - one day prior to liberation/colonization of Pest by the the Soviets.Emesz 16:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Original research

This has been moved here from the main page. Wikipedia rules don't allow unpublished interviews as sources, they are not verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 20:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Based on above remark this section was edited, references were supplied and it was then moved back in the body of document.

Show trial preparations 1953 in Hungary

:moved here for editing during GA review

Preparations for a show trial started 1953 in Budapest to prove that Wallenberg had never been in the Soviet Union. Everything was ready for a trial to prove that Wallenberg had been the victim of Zionists. Three leaders of the jewish communitiy of Budapest Dr. László Benedek, Lajos Stöckler, Miksa Domonkos, two additional "eyewitnesses" Pál Szalai and Károly Szabó arrested, accused by torture. Wallenberg's last supper guests in Budapest "to say goodby": Dr. Ottó Fleischmann, Károly Szabó, Pál Szalai. This invitation was on the evening January 12 1945 in the Gyopár street Swedish Embassy.^[1] The next day, on January 13, 1945 Wallenberg contacted the Russians. Dr. Ottó Fleischmann left Hungary, he was after the war Physician in Vienna, "eyewitnesses" Pál Szalai, Károly Szabó arrested 1953 in Budapest.

Károly Szabó was April 8, 1953 captured on the street, without legal proceedings arrested, without leaving a trace, six months no message to his family. A secret trial, no official record of the case or the judge's verdict is made available. After six months of interrogation, the defendants were driven to despair and exhaustion.

A note from a Hungarian Communist leader Ernő Gerő to the leader of Hungary Mátyás Rákosi ("Stalin's best pupil") März 1 1953 in hungarian archive MOL 276.f. 56/184 [2] says: the interrogations prove "Wallenbergs murder" are the zionist in the jewish communitiy of Budapest. The show trial initiated in Moscow, following Stalin-s anti zionist campaign. After Stalins death and as Lavrentiy Beria killed in Moscow, end of the preparations for the trial, the arrested persons released. Miksa Domonkos died short after the tortures in hospital.^[2]

The above is very important and ought to be expanded on and moved back to the main page.Emesz 20:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wallenberg show trial preparations 1953 in Hungary

The State Protection Authority (Hungarian: Államvédelmi Hatóság or ÁVH) was the State Police force of Hungary from 1945 until 1956. ÁVH actions were not subject to judicial review. On 1953-04-07, early in the morning, Miksa Domonkos, one of the leaders of the Jewish community in Budapest was kidnapped by ÁVH officials to extract "confessions".^[3] Preparations for a show trial started in Budapest in 1953 to prove that Raoul Wallenberg had not been dragged off in 1945 to the Soviet Union but was the victim of cosmopolitan Zionists. For the purposes of this show trial, two more Jewish leaders – László Benedek and Lajos Stöckler – as well as two would-be "eyewitnesses" – Pál Szalai and Károly Szabó – were arrested and interrogated by torture.

The last people to meet Wallenberg in Budapest were Ottó Fleischmann, Károly Szabó, and Pál Szalai, who were invited to a supper at the Swedish Embassy building in Gyopár street on 1945-01-12.^[4] The next day, January 13, Wallenberg contacted the Russians. By 1953, Ottó Fleischmann had left Hungary, working as a physician in Vienna.

Károly Szabó was captured on the street on 1953-04-08 and arrested without any legal procedure. His family had no news of him throughout the following six months. A secret trial was conducted against him of which no official record is available to date. After six months of interrogation, the defendants were driven to despair and exhaustion.

The idea that the "murderers of Wallenberg" were Budapest Zionists was primarily supported by Hungarian Communist leader Ernő Gerő, which is shown by a note sent by him to First Secretary Mátyás Rákosi.^[5] The show trial was then initiated in Moscow, following Stalin-s anti-Zionist campaign. After the death of Stalin and Lavrentiy Beria, the preparations for the trial were stopped and the arrested persons were released. Miksa Domonkos spent a week in hospital and died shortly afterwards at home, mainly due to the torture he had been subject to ^[3]^[6].

Hillel Kook

The section on "The Holocaust" currently contains a great deal of information about the rescue efforts of Hillel Kook. However, I've read it carefully, and I can find no indication that Wallenberg worked with Kook or had any relationship besides engaging in the same endeavor. If there is such a relationship, it should be explained better in the text; if there is no such relationship, then there's far too much of this article devoted to Kook. (Frankly, I suspect that even if there's a relationship, we simply don't need as much detail on it as we're getting.)

The two men probably did not have any actual contact. There are other important relationships. The relationship was that the War Refugee Board was established mainly because of Hillel Kook's rescue group's intense activism in the USA. Without the WRB it is unlikely that the Wallenberg mission would have succeeded to the degree that it did (and it may well have been one of the main catalysts which led to unprecedented scale rescue efforts in Budapest, such as Carl Lutz', the Spanish embassy's, Giorgio Perlasca's, etc.) How would you recommend rephrasing this part of the article? Emesz 06:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition, we get the following sentence at the end of a paragraph about Kook: "Well known Israeli Holocaust historian, Prof. Yehuda Bauer, emphatically disagrees with this" with the citation "conversation with Prof. Bauer at Yad Vashem". Well, a professional author or journalist can cite something to a conversation with the source, but it's fairly well established that Wikipedia editors can't, not when it's not published. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This was added to provide a neutral view and indicate there are views other than historians' David Wymann, Rafael Medoff, etc. Seems that Holocaust history is filled with controversy - notably the Kasztner and Joel Brand issue, impact of Rabbi Weissmandl and colleagues in the Bratislava Working Group, history of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, actions of Jewish leadership in the free world, etc. There are significant controversies about Raoul Wallenberg. For example some recent historians claim Wallenberg had only "minor impact" (saving "only" thousands rather than tens of thousands). There are significant controversies regarding concern or its lack by the wealthy and powerful Wallenberg family vs. intense activism by Wallenberg's step brother: Prof. Guy von Dardel and his daughter Louise von Dardel. Etc. Some of the controversy seems ti be based on legitimately different views of historic facts. Much of it, however, is politically/"ideologically" motivated. The comment about Prof. Bauer was added to indicate that the important link via Hillel Kook (i.e. the WRB) is controversial. I firmly disagree with Bauer, yet because he and his one time students (i.e. "the Bauer School") are considered to be such an authority it is important that his voice be heard.

Would you recommend removing in reference what Professor Bauer said (to me)? Emesz 06:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up

The elongated second paragraph reads like an emotional plea for consideration of Mr. Wallenberg to be remembered or deemed significant or historically important. Notwithstanding his importance, the tone of the second paragraph should be changed and sentences should be rewritten, removing the overemphasis that multiple exclamation points necessarily confer for the specific biographical items mentioned. In essence, clear presentation of the facts will portray Mr. Wallenberg as culturally and historically significant; there needn't be this emotional plea for consideration. This article should undergo a review so input can be collected as to what may specifically be done to remedy this issue. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I took the new additions as an attempt to denigrate Wallenberg, not build him up. In any case, it is totally inappropriate for the intro section. It is unsourced WP:OR as well, so I have no hesitation in deleting it.

I have much more troubled by the lengthy, recent additions of Attila lajos. In my opinion, those are what should be reviewed because of accuracy and sourcing concerns. Clarityfiend 16:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It is an extract from my Swedish doctoral dissertation written about RW in 2004. I can assure you that my opponent went through my sources very seriously … Attila--Attila lajos 20:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent additions of Attila lajos are far away from neutral view! Tamas Szabo 12:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? Are yours? Interestingly, Professor Karsai László or Szita Szabolcs don't distrust my neutrality.I wrote a doctoral dissertation in Swedish about Raoul Wallenberg (Attila Lajos, Hjälten och offren. Raoul Wallenberg och judarna i Budapest (The Hero and the Victims. Raoul Wallenberg and the Jews in Budapest, Växjö, Sweden, 2004, translated and published in Hungary 2007 under the title Raoul Wallenberg. Mítosz és valóság (Raoul Wallenberg. Myth and reality) I done my research for 4 years on this topic and I read more then 150 interviews with survivors of the Holocaust in Budapest and people who knew Wallenberg. My research led me to the most definite conclusion that Raoul Wallenberg activity in Budapest is covered by to many, and totally irrational myths and sagas. I am not trying to denigrate Raoul Wallenberg. I am only trying to write the truth. And what is sensible. I write only thinks which can be documented! If anyone disagrees and will correct me please do so, but with proofs and documents ... and with rational critics. Cite original documents or serious scientific books not fairytales like some of the books in the reference list Attila Lajos--Attila lajos 18:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC) For those who might want to come closer to the truth about RW, I gave some research sources and references at the end of the article (archives, documents, books). When someone went through those, he may come with critical remarks about my points or neutrality. My English is poor so you may have a great advantage ...

Comment from Dirac66: I think that both sides of this dispute are partly right. On the one hand I believe that Dr. Lajos is an expert on Wallenberg whose participation in this article should be welcomed, and the rest of us should take his factual statements very seriously. Especially as most of us have never examined the original sources on this subject as he has.

On the other hand I think Dr. Lajos needs to understand Wikipedia policies better and write in a more neutral and less emotional tone in the article. Opinions should be left to the talk page. For example, his sentence "It’s almost an insult against the simplest common sense to believe that." does not belong in the article, though it would be acceptable on the talk page. In the article it would be better to just delete the statements which he finds to be incorrect, and if necessary explain the reasons on the talk page. Dirac66 22:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I am totally agree with Dira66 and I apologized for that meaning.--Attila lajos 13:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Less controversial cleanup

I am in the midst of organizing the less disputed parts of the article. However, I find two different sets of years for the birth and death of Vilmos Langfelder: c. 1910-1947 and 1912-1948. Anybody know which is correct? Clarityfiend 05:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU VERY MUCH! I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE EDITING THIS ARTICLE BUT ... --Attila lajos 16:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed from the intro section:

The proof was the famous Smoltsov report which is regarded as genuine by the great majority of the Swedish historians who wrote about Raoul Wallenberg (like Bernt Schiller (s. 173), Hans Villius (s. 152) Helene Carlbäck-Isotalo in her article “Glasnost and the opening of Soviet archives: time to conclude the Raoul Wallenberg case?” Scandinavian Journal of History, 1992 (17) s. 175 – 207)

It is not specified what the Smoltsov report is or what it proves. Clarityfiend 02:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The proof on RW dead was which is regarded as genuine by the great majority of the Swedish historians who wrote about Raoul Wallenberg (like Bernt Schiller (s. 173), Hans Villius (s. 152) Helene Carlbäck-Isotalo in her article “Glasnost and the opening of Soviet archives: time to conclude the Raoul Wallenberg case?” Scandinavian Journal of History, 1992 (17) s. 175 – 207)--Attila lajos 02:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Smoltsov is mentioned later on. But how is this document "proof"? It was provided by the Soviet government, which doesn't exactly have a sterling reputation. Clarityfiend 02:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The famous Smoltsov medical report issued by this dr. Smotsov about the dead of RW is considered as genuine by the above mentioned historians, even if the real cause of his dead is very controversial. The russians might have killed RW and then issued a medical repport about a heart attack --Attila lajos 02:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

In the 8th paragraph the sentence structure seems a little bit awkward with the 'particularly' and 'were'. Not being an english major I can't tell you why but I can see it nonetheless. I'm sure an englishy type person can get to the bottom of it, cheers.

Gabor Forgacs and the official, hungarian www.wallenberg.hu analysing Attila Lajos-s book

Gabor Forgacs (living witness) book 2006 "Emlék és Valósag" ISBN 963 06 003 X analysing Attila Lajos-s book on 37 pages. His result: detraction of Wallenberg by Attila Lajos - trying to denigrate Raoul Wallenberg. Forgács never used these words!--Attila lajos 17:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Gabor Forgacs-s presentation this year in Budapest

I met Gábor Forgács. The fact that he was there as a young boy doesn't make him an expert. On the contrary. Reed some eye witness psychology. And if he published he's "analyse" in 2006 then he couldn't reed my book. The book was only published in Swedish then (published in march 2004)and Gábor Forgács doesn't reed Swedish! So he could not analyse my book and go throught all the arguments in 2006!--Attila lajos 13:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

02/03/2007: Wallenberg Memorial Seminar in Budapest http://www.raoul-wallenberg.asso.fr/wallenberg_arch/arch2000/070301rwsembuda.html

About the book by Attila Lajos "I spent half a year going through more than 150 statements of Attila Lajos, checking sources, analysing. In more than a hundred of them I found factual mistakes, strongly biased interpretations, and distorted quoting of sources." Who wrote this? Which statements? Any concrete examples? In which language? Swedish? The hungarian version was only published in march this year. Which pages, where and so ... your sources? ... or are these too only empty allegations ? --Attila lajos 13:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.wallenberg.hu/index.php?0113673&d=1%20

detraction of Wallenberg by Attila Lajos - trying to denigrate Raoul Wallenberg (2004, the hungarian journalist 2004-01-16 - Népszava Online - Hamvay Péter) --Attila lajos 13:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)My book wasn't even published 2004 01 16! How could anyone analyse it before it was published? And I motivate with documents every statement in my book. And that you call "The official hungarian Wallenberg homepage" is written by amateurs, not historians. It is the official site for the Wallenberg myth, and nothing else! Why don't you try to talk with some serious historians or se after your self. Hamvay by example was upset about my statement that Raoul Wallenberg hade contacts and the permission of the Hungarian government to issue protective passports and carry on with his action. This state of facts is proved by several documents both in Swedish and Hungarian archives and there is no serious historian who still has doubts about that. And, according to Susanne Berger he even had the Germans protection: “According to a document released by the Wallenberg archive in 2000, it was again Jacob who made a direct request to SS Abwehr Chief Walter Schellenberg for special protection of Raoul Wallenberg before he embarked on his dangerous mission to Budapest.” See Susanne Berger, Jakob Wallenberg’s initiative on http://www.raoul-wallenberg.asso.fr/wallenberg_res/berger/070507jwinitiativ.html--Attila lajos 17:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC) original, hungarian text: "Az évfordulóra időzítve tette közzé az Magyar Távirati Iroda Lajos Attila Wallenberg emlékét gyalázó nyilatkozatát. ................. Lajos Attila, akinek nevét a hazai tudományos körök egyáltalában nem ismerik. Randolph Braham - a magyarországi holokauszt legtekintélyesebb kutatója - által összeállított, az elmúlt 16 év 1500 a témába vágó publikációját tartalmazó bibliográfiájában sem szerepel Lajos Attila neve." - this text is on the hungarian homepage: http://www.wallenberg.hu/index.php?0113673&d=1%20 My name could not be found in the "bibliografiában" because my book was not published yet!!! Is Hamvay a professional historian? Why do you cite a journalist or an engineeer! Reed history books instead! I have contact to living witnesses: Gábor Forgács, Prof. Jacob Steiner, Dr. Eva Löw, Dr. Anna Klaber who worked with Raoul Wallenberg in Wallenberg Üllői út 2-4 office hired by the Swedish Embassy. Who are the witnesses of Attila Lajos "people who knew Wallenberg"? Tamas Szabo 04:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC) There are over 150 interviews in the University library in Uppsala which I read. I have 5 boxes with interviews at home. What do you have mr. Tamás Szabó, besides citing Wallenberg-believers? --Attila lajos 13:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

short answer to Attila Lajos

(1) Professionals on official hungarian http://www.wallenberg.hu (you write "amateurs")

you can read on this homepage:

"detraction of Wallenberg by Attila Lajos - trying to denigrate Raoul Wallenberg"

Schmidt Mária - professional historian, professor (PhD) director House of Terror
Tóth Gy. László - politológus
Tőkéczky László - professional historian, professor (PhD)
Kapronczay Károly - professional historian (PhD)

I KNOW SCHMIDT AND I READ AND USED HER EXELENT BOOK ABOUT THE JEWISH COUNCIL. SHE DOESN'T CONTRADICT ME. The PAGE (WALLENBERG.HU) IS NOT ONLY ABOUT WALLENBERG! An other thing: ABOUT WALLENGBERG-BELIEVERS: THE IRRATIONALITY OF MANY STORRIES - ALL THOSE EXAGERATIONS WHICH EVEN FORGÁCS WRITES ABOUT AND AGAINST - MAKEs ME BELIEVE THAT THe WALLENBERG-MYTH BECAME A SORT OF RELIGION FOR MANY OF HIS FANS ... AND THAT IS WHY WALLENBERG BECAME SO UNTOUCHABLE --Attila lajos 16:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)--Attila lajos 03:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

(2) Please answer to Gabor Forgacs book exactly on pages 123 - 160 analysing your book. I WOULD LIKE VERY MUCH BUT I DON'T HAVE THE BOOK. I VISITED TO HOMEPAGE BELOW AND READ HES COMMENTS BUT HE GIVES NO EXAMPLE. AND HE'S WORDS on the conference homepage ABOUT MY BOOK WERE NOT ENTIRELY BAD, on the contrary ... SO ... I AM READY TO DO THIS! AS SOON AS I GET HE'S BOOK I'LL COMMENT HE'S COMMENTS. PROMISE --Attila lajos 16:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)--Attila lajos 03:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC) you can read also (Gabor Forgacs seminar to your book here also, short): 02/03/2007: Wallenberg Memorial Seminar in Budapest http://www.raoul-wallenberg.asso.fr/wallenberg_arch/arch2000/070301rwsembuda.html

.... this is a minimum you can do to the victims of terror, to living witnesses. Tamas Szabo 16:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

(3) you write: "I wrote a doctoral dissertation about RW in 2004. I think this is the only scientifically reliable book about RW written so far."

... "the only scientifically reliable book" I think real professionals are humble! bad for your credit. Tamas Szabo 17:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC) WELL, MAYBEE YOU'RE RIGHT ... BUT, DO YOU KNOW ANY OTHER BOOK ABOUT RW WHICH WENT THROUGHT THE SAME SCIENTIFIC SCRUTINY AS A DOCTORAL DISSERTATION DO? THE PUBLICATION IN HUNGARIAN WENT ON WITH THE VERY SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION OF THE SWEDISH SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL AND THE SWEDISH FOREIGN OFFICE. THEIR CRITERIA AND DEMANDS ON SCIENTIFIC QUALITY ARE VERY HIGH. AND PROFESSOR KARSAI LÁSZLÓ OR SZITA SZABOLCS - WHO ARE AMONG THE BEST HOLOCAUST EXPERTS IN HUNGARY (I HOPE YOU DON'T HAVE DOUBTS ABOUT THAT) - HAS THE SAME OPINION... BUT: DID YOU EVER THOUGHT ABOUT WHICH CONSEQUENCES MY CONCLUSIONS HAS FOR THE WHOLE RAOUL WALLENBERG MATTER (I AM SORRY TO USE THESE WORDS, BUT I THINK THERE ARE TO MANY WHO MISUSE THE TRAGIC FATE OF A REALLY GOOD MAN). AS LONG AS THE FAMILY HADe ANY HOPE TO RESCUE HIM WAS EVERY HEROIC PROPAGANDA LEGITIMATE AND UNDERSTANDABLE. BUT NOW ...

Personal Story

Saved my grandmother a Ms. Herczog in 1945 claiming she was his fiancee, for she was out after curfew

he saved alot of people especially jews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.56.61 (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust Memorial Budapest

Regarding this Place: Testimonies from the family Jakobovics in newspapers 1947 in Holland:

http://www.spacetime-sensor.de/wallenberg.htm

I suggest the translation of the Holland newspapers from 1947. Objective: more audience in english. Can You help me translating? Regards Tamas Szabo

dbforum@compuserve.de

Review / comments

I don't have the time to edit Wikipedia too much any more, but I have some comments about this article that might help bring it along. The introductory paragraphs had a rather breathless and unencyclopedic tone, which I think was fairly easily fixed. However, the sections "The Holocaust" and "Raoul Wallenberg's mission" are a bit of a disaster – not only do they discuss Wallenberg only tangentially, rather than as their main subject as one might expect from an article on Wallenberg, but they read link an attempt to disabuse someone infatuated with the "Wallenberg myth" of any notions of his heroism – almost the opposite of how the introduction was supposed to read. Surely this is utterly incompatible with NPOV?

Frankly, I think the article would be better off with those sections rewritten from scratch. If no one is willing to do that, I would suggest they be removed in toto until someone is willing to write something more evenhanded. –Joke 19:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have concluded that the POV editing of this article is not consistent with it being a good article, and have accordingly delisted it. –Joke 21:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Economic aspects

An op-ed article (understreckare) in Svenska Dagbladet on December 11, 2007, "Pengar och politik omgav fallet Wallenberg" (money and politics surrounded the Wallenberg case) by U.S. historian Susanne Berger, points out that before appointing Raoul Wallenberg to his diplomatic/humanitarian task in July 1944, the U.S. had criticized Sweden for helping the Nazi regime to acquire neutral currency (= dollars). Iver Olsen had reported this to his government in May 1994. Swedish companies connected to the Wallenberg family (Enskilda banken, Skandinaviska banken, SKF, Swedish Match, ASEA, Electrolux, AGA Baltic, NK) were involved. It was clear at the time that a change in the Swedish position, in favor of U.S. goals, would benefit Sweden after the war. During 1944 the Germans were desperate for supplies of raw materials and other goods. Trade between Sweden and Hungary stopped in March 1944 when Germany occupied Hungary (before this, they were allied). In September, Swedish SKF sold their inventory in Hungary to their German subsidiary Schweinfurt, just before the ban on selling Swedish roller bearings to Germany went into effect. Even though such business was planned in part together with the U.S., apparently their ally the Soviet Union was not part of these plans. Raoul Wallenberg's plans for organizing the post-war restauration of Hungary added to the Russian suspicion that he was part of a U.S. plan for taking control of Eastern Europe. After the war, Sweden was eager to normalize (economic) relations with Hungary and with Russia. Rescuing Raoul Wallenberg was never a priority. --LA2 (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Raoul-wallenberg-1997.jpg

Image:Raoul-wallenberg-1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Scholarly source missing:Braham

Just a note: It is astounding to me that none of the work of Randolph Braham, the world-recognized leader in Hungarian Holocaust studies, figures in this entry. Do a google, and look into the works he has written and edited. If your read Hungarian, all the better, since he is also the editor of the new 3-vol. Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, in Hungarian, now being translated into English.Shlishke (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the tone of my comment above; I see that his source collection and his major analytical work, The Politics of Genocide, is noted in Archives. The point I should've made is that none of his analysis, and his citation of primary source data, figures in the entry per se, not the archives.Shlishke (talk) 03:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Legacy

I am considering adding a third part to this section, headed "Wallenberg remembered in the Arts" or similar. I am aware of two examples: Peter Greenaway's "The Tulse Luper Suitcases part 3" has an extended section about his time in Budapest and then follows him to Russia; "Wallenberg", an opera by Estonian composer Erkki-Sven Tüür, which has been produced in Germany and, currently in Estonia. I'm floating this idea here first, to see if the regulars think it appropriate.Panchali101 (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Raoul Wallenberg/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review

I have asked for a second opinion on this article, as some of the changes I feel need to be done would require quite a restructuring of the article. The first of these changes concerns the The Holocaust in Hungary section. I feel the sections Worsening conditions and massacre of Jews, 1938-1941 and Döme Sztójay installed as Prime Minister, March 1944 are already covered by History of the Jews in Hungary and that these two subsections should be merged into one short one at the head of the section, with a link directing readers to History of the Jews in Hungary for more information as per WP:Summary Style. The US refugee board and mounting swiss protests subsections could then be placed under this, and edited as it is not entirely clear how the refugee board are related to Wallenberg's efforts as most of his work seemed to involve him acting as a representative of Swiss Government.

My second concern I feel the need for a second opinion on is for the Memorials and Honors subsection. Firstly the line between what is defined as an "honor" and a "memorial" is blurred, as naming a street after Wallenberg in the US seems to be an honor but in Germany and Canada it is a memorial. Also naming a school is cited as an honor and a train station a memorial. It is probably best if these two sections are merged as since most of these events took place after he was believed to have died, the difference between honor and memorial is blurred. Importantly, I am not sure these sections are following the MoS guidelines for WP:Embedded list as I think they could be written as prose which would flow much better. Paragraphs could be formed by describing how Wallenberg has been celebrated in various countrys since there are multiple memorials/honors listed for most countries. There are also pictures of two memorials to Wallenberg not mentioned in the main body of the text. Prose would also encourage the expansion of some of the individual bullet points as some need expansion/further explanation:-

When was Raoul Wallenberg Place in DC renamed, and by what process?
When did Wallenberg's entry in the Guiness book of records cease?
Is Another Kind of Hero the story of Wallenberg, or more than one person?

Further to these comments to which I am seeking a second opinion on, I have also added several {{fact}} tags to the article. References always need to be provided after direct quotes. Other tags relate to material that requires a reference because the source of the material is not clear. Also, the link for footnote 55 does not work and this will need to be replaced.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. A second editor will now read this article and my review and add their opinion as to whether the changes I feel are needed are correct. Million_Moments (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I've always felt the lists suck. I also find the sources poor, as there are no printed references. Yet it did pass the GA-process the last time.

Fred-J 21:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Well the GA review process varies from editor to editor, I've seen articles failed for things I would just put them on hold for! Hence why I've asked for a second opinion. Million_Moments (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing in any case. I generally agree with your comments, have already addressed some of them.

Re: Guinness Book of Records: I can only verify the Guinness Book of Record claim from my own copy from 1989 which is from Sweden. If that isn't good enough as a reference, then just remove that bullet point from the article.

Fred-J 21:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If you use the {{cite book}} template it will be fine. Million_Moments (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

My Opinion

I've read through this article and the concerns listed by Million_Moments, and I have to agree with him. I find the most glaring problem, apart from the many citations that are required, to be the Legacy section. This list can be made into a much more readable prose, according to WP:Embedded list. I also agree with using WP:Summary Style to summarize and adding a see also link to History of the Jews in Hungary. The article overall is not bad but I do not think it yet reaches Good Article status, especially with citations still required. I believe you are right on the money with this one, Million_Moments, and if you believe the nominator can get the article up to the GA Critera within a week, then put it on hold. However, I see the article in need of some serious rewrites and reformatting, and a fail may be in order. That's just my two cents and good work so far to everyone on the article, and good luck in future nominations/improvements. --Banime (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I agree with you also. The most important thing is to have a good article and not to just get the GA mark of approval. And the issues you mention are all valid.

I have now rewritten significant portions of the text and believe them to read much better now. Have also restructured much of it and repositioned the images, adding some new too. The text with fact-tags I either removed or cited.

The Legacy section I rewrote too. Is it okay?

Fred-J 12:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I see the edits you changed and they have already begun to improve the article. I also changed how you put the see also into your article, it's supposed to go under the section title as you can see now. The legacy section is better than a bulleted list now. I see you have put a lot of work into the article, and I think it warrants an "on hold" and not a fail status until Million Moments feels it has reached GA Critera. Of course the decision is left up to him as the original reviewer. If I can suggest one thing, the introduction seems a bit detailed, especially with the details of his death. Perhaps just summarize it (soviets claimed he died of a heart attack, but further research shows he was shot by them in 1947) or something similar, then go into the detail you did in the intro only in the body of the article. Keep up the good work. --Banime (talk) 13:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

On hold

Ok the article is now officially on hold whilst the improvements (which you are racing through!) are made. One thing I wrote in my notes but forgot to mention here, the fact that Wallenberg was inspired by the film Pimpernel Smith is mentioned in the article lead but not explained in the body of the text, which states he was contacted by the US refugee board. This needs explaining please. Million_Moments (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestion for the lede and am glad you brought it up.

Fred-J 17:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok just pop a message here when you think you are finished with the corrections and I'll go over the article again. Million_Moments (talk) 13:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say you can look at it now and tell me what you think. / Fred-J 18:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a picture of a memorial in Tel Aviv that isn't mentioned in the Honors and Memorials section for Israel. Just that one thing and then it's ready to pass! Million_Moments (talk) 14:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I understand, but the gallery is an example, i.e. it doesn't necessary correlate to the Honors and Memorial section.

Fred-J 15:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense, at least not to me, to have a section dedicated to memorials and not mention the existance of one that is pictured. Espicially since you have a specific subsection for Israel that mentioning this memorial in would flesh out. Million_Moments (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright. I've now made some changes to that section.

Fred-J 20:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Pass

Congratulations, this article has passed the GA process! It is a detailed and well illustrated articles. Areas for future improvement include fleshing out the honors and memorials section as much as possible, with names of the people who propsoed the memorials, sculpters and dates of dedication being included as much as possible. Good luck for the future and keep up the good work! Million_Moments (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources

There has to be tons of biographies and books written on Wallenberg, but not a single one is cited here. And not a single Swedish historian is mentioned, not even the Villius analysis of the Smoltsov report. Using mostly tertiary online souces instead of print works lowers the verfiability of the article considerably.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. / Fred-J 15:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

... and problems with presentation

Upon closer inspection, I've noted there is no information about the political ramifications of Wallenberg's fate nor the myth that has been built around him. He was virtually beatified in the 80s and used as an argument against the Soviets by the Reagan administration. There's also the issue of the Swedish government being very keen on using him as an alibi to deflect criticism against passivity and neutrality during WW II. Among journalists and activists, he's often portrayed as almost superhuman while most historians play down the drama and stress that he was only a part of a bigger organization. And what about pointing out that many of the late eyewitness went public only after Wallenberg became well-knwon? Most of the late eyewitness accounts are to the best of my knowledge only considered credible by the most fanatical of Wallenberg activists and some of his closest relatives.

I've checked the sources a bit closer, and many of them seem very tendentious, unreliable or even entirely inappropriate. The Journal of Leadership Studies, a tertiary source that has nothing to do with historical studies, is used to describe some very dramatic historical events. The source they use is John Bierman's Righteous Gentile, which is not exactly super-neutral. Just about all the material from various magazines and newspapers that comment episodes concerning Wallenberg are written by journalists who don't cite any sources whatsoever. Yad Vashem is uncritically used in the lead in to support a figure of "tens of thousands", a figure I doubt historians would support. I think there's pretty much the same problem with organizations like The Raoul Wallenberg International Movement for Humanity, which aren't exactly historical institutes.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yea, there are issues with sources ( I did some quick fixes to the article, that's all ). / Fred-J 15:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Detention of the Russians

It is not correct that Östen Undén was Minister for Foreign Affairs as Raoul Wallenberg was arrested in Hungary. It was Christian Günther. However, Undén/Söderblom later reacted as you mention. Örjan Werkström —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.217.177 (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

Hi, I'm not a native English speaker so I don't want to edit the article, but... In the introduction, instead of "had been made an honorary citizen", I would have put "has been"? --Eusebius (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's more accurate to say "is", since has/had been implies he isn't one now. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

World record for saving lives

To all admirers of Raoul Wallenberg! Remember that your admiration creates biases which modify your way of viewing things and influence your writings and statements. These biases may create serious doubts about the objectivity of the article! Flagellum55 (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Everyone should restrain himself from editing any article in this encyclopaedia unless they have proves and documents that supports his intervention. And proves and documents doesn’t mean citations from newspaper articles, propaganda books and websites written by some other admirers! If you cite these thinks, please check their credibility and explain why you think they are credible! Flagellum55 (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC) From where the information is coming from, is it a direct source or only a second hand source, when was the information “created”, by whom and in what interest … You should apply source criticism before you accept any information, documents or oral history statements. In order to do that and in order to be able to discern between what (probably) was the truth, what is credible or probable, and so forth, you should have good background knowledge. Put your statements into a context! Flagellum55 (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC) In this particular article you should know about the Swedish, German and Hungarian history under the Second World War, and even previous to that, good knowledge about the activity of the American War Refugee Board, Jewish Agency and World Jewish Congress, about the Swedish-German, Swedish-Hungarian, German-Hungarian relations, the power balance between them, the trade relations, the laws which regulated the treatment of Jews and foreigners – specially in Hungary - or the laws which regulated the admission and treatment of foreigners in Sweden. And many other thinks, like some witness psychology, oral history methodology etc., etc. This will make you able to interpret the different oral history statements and the official documents edited by the Swedish, German and Hungarian governments and authorities and to relate them to the frames created by the changing power balance in Budapest 1944. Than put your self some simple questions: - Is it possible Flagellum55 (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC) for a foreign diplomat to issue protective documents and “except” the citizens of another state from the jurisdiction of that state - while they are all on that respective states territory - without an explicit and implicit acknowledgement and an agreement with the government of that respective state? - Can you imagine any soldier or any officer of any army taking orders from a foreign diplomat against the explicit orders from his own superiors? It would be almost high treason isn’t it? - It is possible to believe that the German and the Hungarian authorities didn’t know that the protective passports lacked any legal grounds? - Why did the Hungarian authorities accept the protected passports? - What would have happened if the Hungarian Nyilas (fascist) government has answered NO to the request of the Swedish and other neutrals to accept the validity of the protective passports for the Jews? - What could Raoul Wallenberg or the other diplomats do in that case? Would have been possible to protect a whole neighbourhood and thousand of Jews against the will of the Nyilas government? Thank you! Flagellum55 (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Flagellum55 (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Flagellum55 (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Flagellum55 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember the 1986 Guinness Book of World Records listing Raoul Wallenberg as holding the record for saving more lives than any other human being. Can anyone back this up? --Ardonik.talk() 03:20, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

The number of Jews under Swedish protection in Budapest never exceeded 7000 and under the last days – the beginning of January 1945 – they were only 3700! There are documentary evidences about this. (Wallenberg’s own words to the Russians, Hugo Wohls report at the end of January 1945, the name list with Swedish protective passport owners at the Swedish main archive (Riksarkivet, Stockholm) All higher amounts are purely fantasies! Reed the latest research.--Attila lajos 03:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is how you count. NO! THE PROBLEM IS IF YOU USE SOURCE CRITICISM OR NOT AND IF YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS MAKES YOU ABLE TO DISCERN BETWEEN WHAT IS CREDIBLE AND MORE OR LESS PROVED BY HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS AND WHAT IS MERE COLD WAR PROPAGANDA! Flagellum55 (talk) 17:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Flagellum55 (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC) You can end up with 30,000, or 200,000. Whether or not Guinness Book of World Records picked a number they were suffiently confident in I don't know. --FredrikW 21:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The largest number that I've seen floating around is 100,000, apparently provided by his secretary Per Anger (couldn't be 200,000 - there weren't that many survivors in all of Hungary according to the article itself). But I believe that figure includes lives saved when a German general ignored orders to level the ghettos and kill all the inhabitants shortly before the "liberation" of the city by the Red Army. A (probably spurious) story claims Wallenberg was instrumental in this. The problem is, if Wallenberg met with the general, how could you substantiate what was discussed? If you count just the lives saved by his direct actions, common sense would dictate that it would most likely be in the thousands, possibly over 10,000, but one man saving pretty much every Jew in Budapest? I don't think so. Great as the man was, he couldn't possibly have saved that many in that short amount of time. Remember, he not only had to rescue them, he had to house and feed them.

I have incorporated all this in the article itself. Clarityfiend 07:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality

I think the article should make some reference to his alleged homosexuality: it's pertinent in so far as it may have contributed his identification with social outsiders/the oppressed. The only reference online I've been able to locate is on the South Bank University website: "However, as his homosexuality came to be known about he faded from prominence as a hero of the Holocaust. A new hero was found in the form of Oscar Schindler." http://myweb.lsbu.ac.uk/stafflag/raoulwallenberg.html

Do unsubstantiated allegations really belong in an encyclopedia? Clarityfiend 08:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

We should really have a more substantial and authoritative reference before adding it to the article. Gamaliel 08:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there a reference in any of the biographies? Or were the stories only published in newspapers? KatKat

In my opinion, yes, unsubstantiated allegations can be included (clearly marked as such), but only if they're noteworthy. In this case, it seems rather hard to references to the rumor, so I'd say it's not a persistent enough rumor to garner mention. In particular, unsubstantiated speculations of homosexuality abound for historical personalities, so the criteria for notability would have to be considered higher for that kind of rumor. --BluePlatypus 14:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In this case, the allegation is extremely weakly supported, and in fact it's quite tangential to Wallenberg's reasons for notability. But more to the point, the original claim of "faded from prominence" is definitely nonsense. There are several schools and a street in NYC alone named after Wallenberg. Obviously, a blockbuster movie will elevate someone's prominence, so Schindler's is a better-known name now. But to suggest that noone cares about Wallenberg any more is simply wrong.

I read and heard about Raoul Wallenberg dating (e.g. as a student at the University of Michigan) and the allegation seems to be not true to fact. Unless the person who posted the note has documented evidece it would be much apprciated if this section was voluntarily removed out of respect for truth and for Raoul Wallenberg. LPfeffer April 25, 2006

Whoever said that should beware of slander. I have read ABSOLUTELY nothing about this sort of issue, and this specific part of the discussion should be shut down immediately. From a Jamestown (and obviously now I must be a Wallenberg) defender. March 18, 2007

Wallenberg had a girlfriend in Budapest. She was some Dutch spy's daughter. This is ridiculous, I've never heard such bosh. Mairi, June 7 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.161.31 (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Overall look

While the article is chockful of information, it has only two pictures at the very beginning! Does anyone object to taking the pictures out of the gallery and sprinkling them through the article? Alternately, there is a large selection of related pictures at Category:Raoul Wallenberg in Wikimedia Commons. Yoninah (talk) 08:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Why Claryfiend?

As Claryfiend self declares on his personal page, he admires Raoul Wallenberg more than any other human being. This puts a serious question mark on his “neutrality” in this matter. He should restrain himself from editing this article or remove any contributions to the discussions. Wikipedia don’t need admirers who write articles about their idols but people who strive to come as near as they could to the truth and keep themselves to facts and documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flagellum55 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Show me an example of where I haven't been neutral, oh editor with zero article edits. P.S. That's Clarityfiend. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Nationality

He is Jew, but assimilated . Look he is not Nordic!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.78.112.5 (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

To the user above. He was 1/8 (?) Jew. /Oskar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.129.233 (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel sad that Wikipedia took out the section that listed famous people saved by Wallenberg's heroics.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.117.246 (talk • contribs)

So add it back. Enigma ^message 06:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

New perspective in book by John Lukacs

In his most recent book ("Legacy of the Second World War") the renowned Hungarian-American historian John Lukacs argues that the Germans allowed Wallenberg to engage in his activities because they wanted to send a message to the U.S. that they were not unreasonable and could be negotiated with (as seen in, for example, the thousands of Jews from Budapest who were allowed to go to Switzerland); they also knew this "arrangement" would become known to the Soviets, who might then suspect some kind of secret negotiations between Germany and the West. This makes sense if, as Lukacs argues, the Germans main goal in the last years of the war was not to defeat its enemies outright but to keep fighting while looking for ways to split the otherwise unnatural alliance between capitalist democracies and communists (I tend to agree with this argument. This also helps makes sense out of the otherwise inexplicable Russian arrest and execution of Wallenberg, which has otherwise up to now simply been chalked up to "general communist perfidy", for lack of a better [i.e. intellectually satisfying] reason.) If true I think it is also an important lesson that, while one should not denigrate either Wallenberg's courage or commitment to humanitarian causes, these are not always necessarily sufficient in themselves to make history. Historian932 (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Film about Wallenburg?

Surely if anyone in World War II had an exciting life and experiences that just cry out for a Hollywood historical thriller film to be made about them, it would be this guy. Have there ever been plans for a film or television series or anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.62 (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

What did the Swedish government did to save him?

There is no information either in inprisionment or death sections about what the Swedish government did after 1945 to discover what happened to Raoul Wallenberg. --Lecen (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point. There was an excellent article in the Wall Street Journal a couple years ago ("The Wallenberg Curse") that discussed this question at length (and, in particular, the mostly unsuccessful efforts of his family members to secure diplomatic intervention from the Swedish government). When I have a bit more time, I'll try to incorporate more information. Also missing are more details about his family's rescue efforts, and information on associated organisations.—Zujine|talk 05:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Historical truth or propaganda?

To the editors of the article: Why don't you use primary sources and apply just a little bit of source criticism when you endeavour to write a history article? It is almost unbelievable – and upsetting - that this article is listed as a good history article! It contains several false claims which are, especially regarding the statements about Wallenberg´s activities in Budapest. It is obvious that primary sources and source criticism are totally ignored. Here are some examples:

1. Raoul Wallenberg never learned Hungarian. There are many, many testimonies that prove this!

2. The deportations to Auschwitz were already stopped by the Hungarian regent Miklós Horthy when Wallenberg arrived to Budapest (7 July 1944), so the claims that Wallenberg stopped a train heading to Auschwitz is not true. The Ardai citation is false and ridiculous. Shooting against a Swedish diplomat would have never gone unnoticed and would have caused serious diplomatic reactions from the Swedish legation and the Swedish foreign office (Utrikesdepartamentet) and surely had lead to a written protest note to the Hungarian government! Not one trace of this event or the eventual protest note is to be found either in the Swedish or Hungarian archives. The Ardai citation lacks any logic in many other regards too. I suspect that it is only meant to attract attention, as many other similar testimonies!

3. Miklós Horthy was never putted in house arrest in March 1944!!!

4. The protective passports where issued by the Swedish legation – not by Wallenberg or his "fellow Swedish diplomat Per Anger" - and were signed by minister Danielsson.

5. The Swedish legation negotiated with the Hungarian and not with the German authorities about the recognition of the bearers of the protective passports as foreign (Swedish) citizens. There were 3 times more Swiss and other foreign "citizens" too, all recognized by the Hungarian government. The German authorities had no jurisdiction in these matters and only an amateur and someone who has no knowledge about the situation in Hungary under those times can claim such a thing!

I could continue but I hope this is enough to make the Wikipedia evaluators to begin to wonder about their values: what is more important in this encyclopedia? The historical truth based on primary sources, source criticism and a neutral view or the propaganda which this articka mostly represent? Flagellum55 (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources to back up your claims. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Contradictory information with another page

Sorry I just realized my misunderstanding of the reading. I suppose the paragraph below can be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christoffff (talk • contribs) 14:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

In the section "Recruitment by the War Refugee Board", it is written : "In late spring 1944, George Mantello publicized what is now called the Wetzler-Vrba Report, a detailed account of the operations of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp written by two recent escapees. Following the report's publication, the administration of US President Franklin D. Roosevelt turned to the newly created War Refugee Board (WRB) established as a result of activism by the "Bergson Group" led by Hillel Kook and later by Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr and team in search of a solution to the humanitarian crisis in Hungary".

In the page "War Refugee Board", based on the source : http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/wrb1.html, it is written : The War Refugee Board, established by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in January 1944, was a U.S. executive agency created to aid civilian victims of the Nazi and Axis powers. Created largely as a result of persistent activism by the "Bergson Group" led by Hillel Kook at the behest of Roosevelt's Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Roosevelt "stressed that it was urgent that action be taken at once to forestall the plan of the Nazis to exterminate all the Jews and other persecuted minorities in Europe."

One of those might be untrue or unclear, supposedly the article on Raoul Wallenberg, as the source of the "War Refugee Board" page is quoting the Roosevelt executive order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christoffff (talk • contribs) 14:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight; skeptics and sources

I've added {{undue}} to the section on Wallenberg's death. I've pointed out before that the article is completely lacking a perspective based on peer-reviewed historical research. Not one reference is made to the many Swedish historians who have written about Wallenberg, and the "Dispute..."-section makes it seem as if there is widespread uncertainty on whether Wallenberg died in 1947. This is highly misleading since there is consensus among historians that the Smoltsov report is genuine.

There might be skeptics out there, but their opinions should not dominate the article while the views of professional historians are completely absent.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Pimpernel Smith

It seems odd to have a whole section about this on Pimpernel Smith [5] and nothing here. So I thought I'd flag it up. (Emperor (talk) 05:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC))

Early Life

The last paragraph mentions that in 1935 Wallenberg got a job at a branch office of the Holland Bank in Haifa, Israel. This should be corrected to "Mandatory Palestine" since Israel didn't come into existence as a state until 1948. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.111.118.114 (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

The "son of a swedish Entrepreneur" who had a changeable lifestory in WW2 and who is imprisoned in several gulags is mentioned in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyns "Gulag Archipelago" I want to research it and see if it was really Wallenberg Solzhenitsyn was talking about.

Further if anyone has a natural interest in this site and wants to help me since I'm neither english-speaking nor a experienced Wikipedia-Author i'd appreciate that.

95.117.240.139 (talk) 20:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to pursue this research on your own, but Wikipedia does not allow publication of original research. Content has to be attributed to reliable sources and it can not reflect the ideas or result proposed by individuals without support among academics and experts in the field.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Streets

in the section about his facts, where it says he has a bunch of streets named after him in hungary, canada, etc, he has a street named for him in washington dc. i grew up across from this street and had no idea who he was until now. (address for the united states holocaust museum, AKA 100 block of 15th st SW Washington DC) the holocaust museums address is 100 Raoul Wallenberg PL SW Washington DC, 20024. OR 100 15 ST SW DC, hence they are the same street. http://maps.yahoo.com/maps_result?addr=raoul+wallenberg+pl&csz=washington+dc&country=us&new=1&name=&qty=

ZOOM IN TO SEE THE NAME OF THE STREET.

have a nice day!

october 11 2011 Brooklyn, NY - Councilman David G. Greenfield, Councilman Brad Lander, and Councilwoman Sara González are announcing legislation today that would co-name the Boro Park portion of 13th Avenue after Raoul Wallenberg who saved thousands of lives during the Holocaust. “Raoul Wallenberg is one of the great heroes, humanitarians and righteous gentiles of World War II,” explained Councilman Greenfield. “Mr. Wallenberg gave his life to save tens of thousands of Jews. Thanks to Raoul, thousands of my constituents are here today. This is a well-deserved recognition from the next generation of those that Mr. Wallenberg saved.” Wallenberg, a Swedish diplomat, traveled to Hungary during the summer of 1944 with the intention of saving as many lives from Nazi destruction as possible. By that time, over 400,000 Jews had been deported to concentration camps. About 200,000 remained in the ghettos of Budapest, the city where Wallenberg set to work protecting as many Jewish residents as he could. Wallenberg rented 32 buildings throughout the city, declaring them extraterritorial under Swedish diplomatic authority. Though the buildings were only suited for about 5,000 inhabitants, Wallenberg quickly issued Swedish passports to over 30,000 Hungarian Jews and moved them into the newly-established diplomatic posts. The passports identified the bearers as Swedish citizens, saving them from deportation to the concentration camps. Wallenberg recruited over 300 people in Budapest to participate in his humanitarian efforts. While they were well-drilled in the diplomatic maneuvering at the center of Wallenberg’s operation, he would often spur them to more dramatic feats. Hearing one night that Jews were being bound, shot, and set afloat on the Danube, Wallenberg asked members of his staff whether they could swim and led a team into the icy cold water, where they saved over fifty people. After the war, Wallenberg was detained by the Soviets and is presumed to have died in Soviet captivity. Thousands of the people he saved during the Holocaust immigrated to the United States after the war, and many of them settled in Boro Park. Among those saved are luminaries of the scientific and political community, including the late United States Congressman Tom Lantos. “Raoul Wallenberg’s selfless actions during the Holocaust have had such an important impact on our lives,” said Councilmember Lander. “If it weren’t for him, many of our friends and neighbors in Boro Park might not be here today. It is therefore vital that we gather as a community and pay tribute to this legendary individual so our future generations will never forget him.” “I am happy to join my colleagues in remembering a man who meant so much too many,” said Councilwoman González. “Mr. Wallenberg’s actions saved thousands of lives and he deserves gratitude from the community and this great City.” The co-naming will coincide with Wallenberg’s 100th birthday next year. The Raoul Wallenberg Centennial Celebration Commission, spearheaded by the Friedlander Group, will be organizing the effort to honor Wallenberg’s legacy culminating with an effort to secure the Congressional Gold Medal for Mr. Wallenberg. This street renaming will be one of many events during 2012 that will commemorate his achievements and heroism. “As Jews, we have the most to be grateful for in regard to the heroism of Raoul Wallenberg and his life-saving actions,” said Ezra Friedlander, CEO of the Friedlander Group and spokesman for the Commission. “Indeed as 2012 approaches, we anticipate that it will be known as the ‘Year of Wallenberg’ and I commend leaders from both the city and federal level for taking this important issue to heart”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.159.197.242 (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

2 stamps with Wallenberg in PD

File:Stamps of Hungary, 025-12.jpg

Raoul Wallenberg Memorial Year. Stamps of Hungary, 2012.

There are two stamps (Hungary, 2012 and Kazahstan, 2012) in Public Domain. Link: http://www.wnsstamps.ch/en/stamps?search[freetext]=Wallenberg.

P.S. It will be interesting to know - what is pictured at the right part of Hungarian stamp and what means the text (in Swedish?)... -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It's German, not Swedish, and says "Royal Swedish legation in Budapest". The symbol is a variant of the lesser coat of arms of Sweden.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! I added your answer to the description of this File:Stamps of Hungary, 025-12.jpg. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Wallenberg is jewish

Here is a link that proves Wallenberg is jewish. http://www.jewornotjew.com/profile.jsp?ID=993 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.171.237 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The issue seems non-notable and the source entirely unreliable.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The honor Righteous Among the Nations is specifically bestowed only on non-Jews. Duuh. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

100,000 saved claim

As far as I can see, only Per Anger cites this number. Yad Vashem says "tens of thousands", and raoulwallenberg.net says there were 97,000 Jewish survivors when Budapest was liberated. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

A ten minute search on Google Books turns up multiple sources, including two books that use the 100,000 figure in their titles, supporting a very large number as accurate. The disparity apparently results from the credit (likely appropriate) that advocates of the 100,000 plus figure give to RW for saving the 70,000 Jews in the Budapest ghetto when he persuaded the local German military commander (with a promise of intervention with the fast-approaching Soviets) to head off the Arrow Cross assault-with-intent-to-kill operation which had been charged with liquidating the residents of the ghetto. That number when added to the generally accepted 35,000 for whom schutz-passes were issued or who otherwise were shepherded by RW & associates out of the country brings the number to the six-figure level. However, the three sources that you cite above of themselves ought to be sufficient at least to re-add the "tens of thousands" description to the lede, which is the appropriate place to establish the extent of RW's remarkable activity. Not to do so, courtesy of mass media and pop culture and Spielberg, leaves the impression that RW was another but less important Schindler, someone who did not merit the Hollywood treatment that OS got, instead of a far more significant figure in the rescue operations. Re-adding "tens of thousands," consequently, going with the more conservative yet still impressive figure. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

You didn't get that I deleted "tens of thousands" because it was written twice in the same paragraph. Anyway, I've rejiggered it and tagged it with a reference. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

New, long BBC News web article about Wallenberg:

New, long BBC News web article about Raoul Wallenberg: [6] 87.97.108.127 (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Raoul Wallenberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Article Protection?

In the past few months, people have been vandalizing the article. I propose putting it under at least semi-protected status to prevent vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.198.9 (talk) 01:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Religion

I think it should also be more clearly noted that Wallenberg was NOT a Jew (some people may assume he was a Jew because of his Jewish sounding last name. Flyerhell

Yes, iceberg is not a jew either and will need a similar warning. User:Ejrrjs says What? 14:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that Wallenberg did have a Jewish connection, possibly a grandfather? Clarityfiend 07:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It might be worth pointing out he wasn't jewish. The Swedish-language version of the article does. (Note that "Wallenberg" doesn't sound jewish to Swedish ears, since the -berg suffix is very common in Swedish names) There's a connection in the fact that Raoul's grandmother's grandfather was jewish, but that's it. Another reason people sometimes assume they're jewish is because it's a family of bankers and capitalists, owning the SEB bank, for instance. --BluePlatypus 05:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I took out "The Wallenberg family in Sweden has been rumored to have Jewish descent, which is incorrect. On the male line, the Wallenbergs are descendants from Swedish farmers in Östergötland. Raoul jr is the only member of the family with a known Jewish descent." This has an unpleasantly racist tinge to it. The brief mention of his mother's Jewish connections should be sufficient. Clarityfiend 05:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Jewishness doesn't necessarily refer to religion. My understanding is that Wallenburg was an atheist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.62 (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The Israeli Government did not consider him Jewish, as he is a Righteous Among the Nations. Others such as Nicholas Winton who had Jewish parents is not eligible, despite being Baptised not Bar Mitzvaed and being atheist in adulthood. Judaism has its own ancestry rules, the one-drop role does not apply here.--MartinUK (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Raoul Wallenberg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130818155820/http://www.nola.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/russia-says-the-wallenberg-case-is-still/c7372c74d2a9436db517116e0d506033 to http://www.nola.com/newsflash/index.ssf/story/russia-says-the-wallenberg-case-is-still/c7372c74d2a9436db517116e0d506033

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

SMERSH

The SMERSH was involved in the case. How is it possible to write such a long article without even mentioning the name?Xx236 (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

aimed at politically destabilizing Hungary’s pro-Nazi government

Is it a crime according to the autor(s)?Xx236 (talk) 09:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Raoul Wallenberg. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Doctor death

Apparently the Svenska Dagbladet published an article saying Wallenberg was killed by a "Doctor Death"

"Hemlig dagbok: Wallenberg avrättad med gift av ”Doktor död”." Svenska Dagbladet.

WhisperToMe (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Death: manner and date

This article does not mention different theories of how Wallenberg died. The purpose of making him an honorary citizen was to try to pressure the Soviet Union to explain exactly what happened to Wallenberg. The official story of the Soviet Union was that Wallenberg died of a heart attack in the late 1940s (I think 1947?). However, (as the article mentions) many people who had been imprisoned in Soviet prisons supposedly had contact with him as late as the 1980s. One theory that I read quite awhile ago (forgot the source) was that Wallenberg may have been murdered in the early 1980s because of the increasing pressure on the Soviet Union. Another theory that I heard was that he was put into a mental hospital in the Soviet Union. There is hope that with the opening of the archives of the former Soviet Union, we may finally find out what happened to Wallenberg. While theoretically, Wallenberg could still be alive, in some secretive prison camp, it is highly doubtful as he would be in his 90s today. If no one can critique this or can add to it, I may add this to the article itself...I really would like a source to base it on though, I don't want to put this all down by memory. Flyerhell 07:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

On the page for Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev it is said that he (Yakovlev) released a statement in 2000 that Wallenberg was shot by the Soviet police in 1947. Given Yakovlev's position it seems likely that he would have known the truth. Also since he was not compelled to make such a statement and considering the time between the actual event and the statement there seems to be little reason to consider the statement a lie. I don't know enough about Wallenberg to make assertions either way, but I thought the information might affect the discussion on the nature of his death.

Aye, but who has a reason to lie, may I ask? I am not asserting anything, but could it possibly be just as likely that Yakovlev might not have known the truth, but WOULD lie in order to keep Russia from cutting off her nose to spite her face? It's highly possible. And there are several reliable sources (Abraham Kalinski, for example) who have claimed persistently that they saw Wallenberg in Russia. Remember, people will rarely die for a lie, and these people have been rather insistent on their claim for over forty-fifty years. A Jamestown defender--March 18, 2007.

From the point of view of Wikipedia, I think it is important not to present any one theory of Wallenberg's death as true. There is much conflicting evidence and we will probably never know for certain how or when he died. At the moment (18 March 2007) the article summarizes the evidence and leaves the question open (or NPOV in Wiki-speak), and I think it should stay that way. This also applies to the articles on Amelia Earhart, Jimmy Hoffa, Anastasia Romanov, and anyone else whose death is still a mystery. Not everything is known in this world. Dirac66 22:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

His possible death location should be switched from Russia to Soviet Union.

Ten years after the preceding comments, the article on the whole seems to provide a balanced view of the conflicting evidence. The only problem is that some readers may just glance at the first line and the infobox, which both now claim that he died on 31 July 1952. As is clear from note 1 and also the section Declared death in absentia, this date is a legal fiction of Swedish tax law and there is no evidence that he actually died in 1952. So I am going to change the first line and the infobox to read Date unknown, in order to avoid misleading readers who just glance at the date. I have no problem with the explanation of the 1952 date further down for more serious readers who read the whole explanation. Dirac66 (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Thanks for attending to this. Eric ^talk 01:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Raoul Wallenberg. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0%2C8599%2C1807803%2C00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C501020909-346286%2C00.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C809115%2C00.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071026081732/http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/scandinavia/01/12/wallenberg.finding/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/scandinavia/01/12/wallenberg.finding/index.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C997659%2C00.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604112819/http://nobelprize.org/nomination/nomination_facts.html to http://nobelprize.org/nomination/nomination_facts.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.raoulwallenberg.se/tribute_mon%26sculp.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/?en%2Fwallenberg%2Ftributes%2Fworld%2Fsweden.658.htm
Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/69qPGvu6u?url=http://www.civilcourageprize.org/honorees.htm to http://www.civilcourageprize.org/honorees.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Former%2BWagar%2BHigh%2BC%C3%B4te%2Brelaunched%2BWallenberg%2BAcademy/8164198/story.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Raoul Wallenberg. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Raoul Wallenberg. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Raoul Wallenberg. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Split off honours, awards etc into separate article

When more space is devoted to things named after him and what awards he received, I think that it's time to split off an article titled Honours received by Raoul Wallenberg or something to that effect, with only the most notable being summarised here. Catrìona (talk) 18:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding New Information

In the next couple of weeks, I plan on adding new information from the book, Unlikely Heroes: The Place of Holocaust Rescuers in Research and Teaching, a book published by the University of Nebraska on the humanitarian efforts that went on during the Holocaust. The information I will be adding includes more details regarding the process in which Wallenberg was recognized for his humanitarian efforts, which is currently in a brief section towards the top of the article. This new information will help give more background as to how Wallenberg's recognition as an honorary American Citizen came about. Furthermore, new information from the book regarding attempts to get more knowledge regarding Wallenberg's capture by the Soviet Union will be added in order to give more background regarding how little we know about Wallenberg's capture despite the large amount of effort put in. Altogether, the new information should total approximately 200-300 words. If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page.AJKeenan99 (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

AJKeenan99, Thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. That book is certainly an RS and better quality than most of the sources in this article. b uidhe 17:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AJKeenan99.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

^ József Szekeres: Saving the Ghettos of Budapest in January 1945, Pál Szalai "the Hungarian Schindler" ISBN 9637323147X, Budapest 1997, Publisher: Budapest Archives, Page 74
^ [7] (Book: Mária Ember, They Wanted to Blame Us, 1992 [8])
^ ^a ^b Interview with István Domonkos, son of Miksa Domonkos who died after the show trial preparations (in Hungarian)
^ József Szekeres: Saving the Ghettos of Budapest in January 1945, Pál Szalai "the Hungarian Schindler" ISBN 9637323147X, Budapest 1997, Publisher: Budapest Archives, Page 74
^ Kenedi János: Egy kiállítás hiányzó képei (in Hungarian)
^ Hungarian Quarterly (in Hungarian)

[1] József Szekeres: Saving the Ghettos of Budapest in January 1945, Pál Szalai "the Hungarian Schindler" ISBN 9637323147X, Budapest 1997, Publisher: Budapest Archives, Page 74

[2] [7] (Book: Mária Ember, They Wanted to Blame Us, 1992 [8])

[InterviewIstvanDomonkos-3] Interview with István Domonkos, son of Miksa Domonkos who died after the show trial preparations (in Hungarian)

[4] József Szekeres: Saving the Ghettos of Budapest in January 1945, Pál Szalai "the Hungarian Schindler" ISBN 9637323147X, Budapest 1997, Publisher: Budapest Archives, Page 74

[5] Kenedi János: Egy kiállítás hiányzó képei (in Hungarian)

[6] Hungarian Quarterly (in Hungarian)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]