Misplaced Pages

Talk:Folke Bernadotte: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:56, 20 December 2006 editMackan79 (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers7,363 edits →Rubinstein← Previous edit Latest revision as of 12:05, 7 January 2025 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots8,064,599 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 5 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(260 intermediate revisions by 64 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ARBPIA}}
{{ScoutingWikiProject|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{Talk header}}
==2003 discussion==
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|listas=Bernadotte, Folke|blp=no|1=
Moved from user talk page:
{{WikiProject Palestine|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Scouting|importance=Mid|past-biography=September 2010}}
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=Low|royalty-work-group=yes|royalty-priority=Low}}
{{WikiProject Sweden|importance=High}}
}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2011-09-17|oldid1=450987940|date2=2015-09-17|oldid2=681127764}}


== Untitled ==
<small>
The article is as usual written by the sort of people Adorno described, for whom to use "I" is an impertinence. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Hi Ruhrjung,


== Too much genealogy ==
Re: Your reverting of my change to the ] entry - regarding Lehi.
There is far too much here on the count's descendants and his wife's family. Far too much to be relevant to his bio. I will be doing a major ] job on that section soon, unless anyone strongly objects and can show me how all that can be relevant here. ] (]) 12:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
:I agree - hatchet away! ] (]) 19:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
::I've transferred the genealogical text (without deleting it) to my sandbox ], to see if I can format it as a table in the way I did with Lennart's genealogy. That doesn't mean the result wouldn't deserve some pruning, but it might be clearer what's what and who's who. By the way, I collapsed (and shrunk) the family table at ], combining it with the collapsed ahnentafel. It should make the stubby thinness of the other material more apparent. ] (]) 21:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
::: Good work! ] (]) 22:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
:::: I finished the change for Folke, but it would be useful for others to check it over for errors, omissions, misunderstandings, inconsistencies and redundancies, some of which are inevitable. See ]. The treatment of offspring at the equivalent articles at Wikiswedia is very brief, although that shouldn't be the limiting factor here. ] (]) 07:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
::::: Very good work. ] (]) 08:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
We have still not landed anywhere near normalcy in this regard. Now, his sons have a special hidden info box, where again, all kinds of irrelevant info has been added about grandchildren etc. Names are bolded all over as if these people's names are more important than Bernadotte's biographical accomplishments. His extramarital daughter is not in the box, so now she is visible as a child of his but the others aren't visible unless a box is specially opened. Very screwy if you ask me. ] (]) 12:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
:{{done}} as well as I had time for right now. ] (]) 13:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


== Bernadotte talking to Australian PoW's.==
Contrary to what you say, Lehi being a terror organization is ''very much'' disputed. Most (or at least many) Israelis (myself included) do not consider Lehi to be a terrorist organization.
Pardon my ignorance, but in relation to the picture of Bernadotte talking to Australian PoW's... Australia had no army personnel in Europe during WWII - but rather RAAF personnel; the slouch hats hint at these men being in the army.
Lehi never targeted innocent civillians in attempt to terrorize them. All of Lehi's attacks were against military or government targets (including high-ranked officials such as Bernadotte).
Yeah, here are tildes, showing the post is my own ] (]) 23:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
This is ''very different'' than what "proper" terrorist organizations do - attacking random civilian targets such as busses or airplanes.
:You might be right, but can you just provide with a reliable sourse, just to be on a safe side.--<span style="font-family: tahoma;"> ] ]</span> 16:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
:: Australian POWs were taken to Germany from North Africa and other places. There is . ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


== Rescue in late states ==
Avraham Stern's memorial day is attended every year by Israeli political and government officials. Given Israel's effort to gain international support for its ongoing war against terrorism of all kinds, you wouldn't expect Israeli leaders to associate themselves with the memory of someone who led a terrorist organization. Indeed they don't - like me they believe that Lehi, while sometimes using extreme measures, was ''not'' a terrorist organization.


Perhaps the Rescuing POW's in the late stages of WW II could be called a rescue ???
I'm not really trying to convince you that Lehi was not a terrorist organization (you are entitled to your own opinion on that) - only that the issue is disputed. Since it is indeed so, the proper place to discuss it is on the ] page - rather than have is stated on every page which mentions Lehi.
Also, the article doesn't make it clear its a late stages of the war thing.. He didn't do ANY rescues in 1942 or 1943... It doesn't say that his involvement in negotiating surrender was ended by the end of the war, the Allies military invasion of Berlin..


It all seems weasily at present, as if to exagerate his value.. "Look, its a man who can negotiate with the Nazi's ... " But only when the nazis were looking at how to die gracefully.
] 21:17 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)


As Folke Bernadotte ''not'' was in Jerusalem in the capacity as an officer of any Government or conquering Power, or something similar, but as a ''mediator'' - and as he was not there as an officer of anything, except the United Nations - I have some problems to understand you, and if I remember correctly also David Ben Gurion would have had so.


] (]) 04:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I mean: The wording as it stands there is far more NPOV than many thinkable alternatives, and by moving away from the NPOV-version, you invite to unwished changes, which beside diminishing the general value and credibility of[REDACTED] articles also will call for booring reverting. The subject of the article is Folke Bernadotte, and it can't be assumed that readers follow links. What's relevant here is the reasons behind the assassination, and there maybe the nature of the assassains is of some interest?


== From the Britannica Reference Suite 2010 article on Folke Bernadotte ==
Just start with the accusations against Bernadotte for Nazi-collaboration and spying for the British, and I think you get the picture. See for instance http://www.lysator.liu.se/nordic/div/folke.html


best regards!<br>
-- ] 22:49 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)


"Bernadotte (af Wisborg), Folke, Greve (count)." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2010:
There is no disagreement on the facts: Bernadotte was in Jerusalem as a mediator on behalf of the UN. As such, he had a potential influence on the future of the young state of Israel. Some people believed then (maybe correctly, maybe not) that this influence was dangerous, perhaps even destructive - and concluded that assassinating Bernadotte would eliminate this danger. This was the reason behind the assassination - not the fact that Lehi was a "terrorist organization".


"Appointed mediator in Palestine by the UN Security Council on May 20, 1948, Bernadotte obtained the grudging acceptance by the Arab states and Israel of a UN cease-fire order, effective June 11. He soon made enemies by his proposal that Arab refugees be allowed to return to their homes in what had become the State of Israel. After a number of threats against his life, he and André-Pierre Serot, a French air force colonel and UN observer, were murdered by members of the Jewish extremist Stern Gang. Bernadotte's efforts laid the foundation for both the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization, which monitors cease-fires and assists peacekeeping operations in the region, and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, which was created to provide relief services for Palestinians who lost their homes and means of livelihood following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948."
As I see it, political assasination is not a form of terrorism. If it were, we would have to come up with a different word for what I see too often on the streets of the city where I live - the mass murdering of random, innocent, men, women and children going about their everyday business. (For a few recent examples see ]).
I'm not saying political assassination is a good thing, or a legitimate thing, or a morally justifiable thing. I'm just saying it is different from terrorism.


When you say "I have some problems to understand you" do you mean that my English is not good enough to understand (if this is the case, I apologize) - or do you really mean that you have problems ''agreeing'' with me?


(Just in case anyone's interested:
Ben-Gurion condemned the assassination of Bernadotte. He might have even called it an act of terrorism. This does not prove anything. Ben-Gurion was a politician, and he frequently said (and did) things which were contraversial. Israelis have disagreements among themselves, as I'm sure Swedes sometimes have too.
Why is "The Jewish terrorist organization Lehi" more NPOV than "the Jewish organization Lehi"? The latter is completely neutral - it contains nothing disputed. How can you say it's non-NPOV? How does it diminish the credibility of the WikiPedia? If killing Bernadotte was a bad thing to do, and it was done by Lehi, than the reader can conclude by his own that "Lehi was bad". You don't have to shove this conclusion down his throat by adding the word "terrorist". If the reader is interested in forming an opinion on Lehi based on additional facts, he can follow the link. Misplaced Pages should provide the facts - not make moral judgements. That's what NPOV is all about as I understand it.


"Stern Gang." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2010:
As a final thought - just consider what would happen if I searched for all mentions of the PLO in the WikiPedia, and added the words "terrorist organization" before each of them. If you consider Lehi to be terrorist - you must do so for the PLO as well. But I do not think it would be constructive
to state this every time the PLO is mentioned.


also called Stern Group , or Lehi , formally Loḥamei Ḥerut Yisraʾel (Hebrew: “Fighters for the Freedom of Israel”)
Regards,


Zionist extremist organization in Palestine, founded in 1940 by Avraham Stern (1907–42) after a split in the right-wing underground movement, Irgun Zvai Leumi)
] 08:49 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)


<span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;←&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;&nbsp;</span> 16:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


== maybe you could help me re the saving of my mother from aushwitz ==
Let's start with the ''understanding:''<br>
I am not conciously provocative, and I meant litterally that I didn't/don't understand how you think, although this is improved now. I also guess that both of us use English as a foreign language.


Hi
Secondly:<br>
At least in "my" part of the world, PLO is a notorious terror organization. (Particularly in Germany.) LVI/STERN/LEVI is however not known, why I believe there is a need to characterize the group. The NPOV lies, according to my view, in chosing a term which is sufficiently descriptive for such readers who, if promted to edit, would tend to stress the relations to IDF and Israel's state leaders (and their indirect or direct responsibility), and at the same time (on the other hand) sufficiently distinct not to throw blame on the Jewry or Israel collectively. This I feel you do by characterizing the group as plainly "Jewish", and I believe your wording here invites to further editing.


My name is michael roth and my late step mother told me of the way she was saved during from exterminatiion in aushwitz before the end of the war
Finally,<br>
I believe in keeping to the definitions valid before the ] in ]. The term "terrorism" has since then become much more used, and its usage has also become much more questioned. I believe this process is not yet ripe, why I think seriously intended texts must be ] in their wording. Everyone knows that terrorists usually are freedom-fighters for someone else. That's trivial. However, if not as an act of terrorism (as the word was used before ]), how would you characterize the assassination of a benevolent '''mediator from a neutral country''', without any other power than that of proposing compromises? It was rather others than the victim who were targets of a intended psychological impact. "Political violence" against someone without political power, what's that if not ...terrorism?


my understanbding is that Himmler did a deal with Count Folke Bernadotte where a thousnad jewsih lives were traded for 1000 swedish trucks
-- ] 13:50 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)


My step mother told me one day she was called to roll call and she was loaded into a convoy which was straffed either bty the american or british airforces , many of the prisoners were killed in ths raid but she arrived in denmark and was transported to sweden
Thank you for your detailed replies, Ruhrjung. I find this to be an interesting discussion, and I hope you feel the same. I'm sorry if I was somewhat aggressive in my previous posts. I sincerely wasn't sure what you meant when you said you had problems understanding me. I'm glad we cleared this out.


Maybe you can direct me to some hsitorical records of this event
I now understand better your reasons for wanting to label Lehi as a "terrorist organization" - you do not want people to think it represented all (or most) Jews.
I'd like to suggest the following alternative wording: "the Jewish ''extrimist'' Lehi organization" (or perhaps, use ''radical'' instead of ''extrimist'').
This wording makes it clear that Lehi represented only a small part of the Jews (or Zionists) - which is an undisputed fact - without using the term "terrorist", which, as you said yourself, does not have a clear, agreed-upon, definition.


if you cn assist i would be most appreciative
I hope you will find my suggestion reasonable. If you do, I would appreciate it if you went ahead and implemented it (in that case, there is no need to answer my note, unless you want to, of course). If you do not agree to the suggestion, please explain why.


my email address is michael.roth@bigpond.com
You say the PLO is commonly known to be a terrorist organization. Just as an experiment, I'm going to edit the PLO page to say that. I would bet you 10 WikiMoneys that within 24 hours my change will be reverted on the grounds of being non-NPOV (except I don't have any WikiMoney - so let's not make this an actual bet :-)


thank you <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
I disagree with you regarding the motives of the Bernadotte assassination. You say he was "without any other power than that of proposing compromises". I think this power, when backed by an organization such as the UN (which was perhaps at the peak of its strength at that time), is not something to be taken lightly. Bernadotte was promoting a plan which, in some aspects, was much worse for Israel than the 1947 partition plan (which was pretty bad as it was). Mediators often do much more than "propose" plans. If they are backed by a strong force, they often have the power to ''impose'' their plans (See, for example, the US ] these days). From what I know, the reason behind the assassination of Bernadotte was to make sure his plan never became a reality. I disagree that it was done in an attempt to terrorize anyone else.
==Extended family charts==
Biographical articles about notable persons are supposed to be about the person himself. They are not about his ancestors or his wife's ancestors. I deleted the unsourced material that was taking up an ''undue'' amount of space in this article. Even it was sourced, it would not be appropriate here.--] (]) 12:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
:Dear Gilabrand/Geewhiz: While you were writing this I was writing to you. I have seen to it that the excessive genealogy once in this article (and many others) has been edited and reduced considerably. So I fully agree with your edit summary comment. But isn't it customary to mention the children of a person with a WP biography? --] (]) 12:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
::Yes, of course. Children and maybe a famous relative or two is fine. It was just this huge referenceless section that caught my eye. Please feel free to add whatever material you feel is relevant and not excessive. Best--] (]) 13:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
:::{{done}}. ] (]) 17:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


== notes on two sources ==
The term "terrorism" was used (here in Israel, at least) to describe random acts of violence against civillians (the kind I mentioned in my previous note) well before the September 11th attack. For me, at least, this definition was not changed by that attack.


"The Secret War on the Jews", by Aarons and Loftus is a standard sort of conspiracy tract. Its main "revelation" is that the British government has a secret department which keeps tabs on every Jew in the world. Almost every factual claim it makes about Bernadotte is wrong. Believe it at your peril. The book "Nazi millionaires" claims to have new evidence on Bernadotte but it is only that he had a personal relationship with the ]. This is old news, read about it already at ]. Without Schellenberg's support, the White Buses would not have happened and thousands would have died. Later Schellenberg tried to negotiate a German surrender using Bernadotte as a reluctant messenger (this should be in the article, though with a proper source). Calling this "Nazi collaboration" on Bernadotte's part is somewhat disgusting. Neither book comes close to satisfying ]. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
As for what I would call the Bernadotte assassination - I would simply call it an "assassination". This is an accurate, undisputed term, which does not entail any assumptions about the motives of its executors.


== External links modified ==
Thank you for your attention,


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
] 18:46 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)


I have just added archive links to {{plural:2|one external link|2 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
Well,<br>
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071226031325/http://domino.un.org:80/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/ab14d4aafc4e1bb985256204004f55fa!OpenDocument&Highlight=0,Bernadotte,progress to http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/ab14d4aafc4e1bb985256204004f55fa!OpenDocument&Highlight=0,Bernadotte,progress
I'm afraid we have some '''serious''' divergences regarding the concepts of ''mediating'' and ''neutrality''. But I don't think there is reason to discuss that here-and-now. I've been sufficiently much in Israel to know what in '''my''' eyes looks like a conception of The-World-Aginst-Us. No harm intended!
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090118072030/http://domino.un.org:80/UNISPAL.NSF/d744b47860e5c97e85256c40005d01d6/48c06a0c497863f1852560c2005beb32!OpenDocument to http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/d744b47860e5c97e85256c40005d01d6/48c06a0c497863f1852560c2005beb32!OpenDocument


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.
We also stress the components of '''terrorism''' differently, as you stress ''civilian'' victims, and I stress ''fear'' in the non-victims, more than the other.


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
But that's things we have to live with.


Cheers. —]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 00:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I've made a change which I hope is in your liking. I persist, as you see, in the wish to denominate the Stern gang as ] instead of ]s, which they of course also are...


== External links modified ==
-- ] 19:23 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
Thank you. I'm happy that we reached an agreed solution despite our outstanding disagreements. I have no problem, of course, with the description of Lehi as "Zionist".


I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
Also, my change on the ] page was already reverted, just as I expected.
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100605160815/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/AB14D4AAFC4E1BB985256204004F55FA to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/AB14D4AAFC4E1BB985256204004F55FA
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100605160815/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/AB14D4AAFC4E1BB985256204004F55FA to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/AB14D4AAFC4E1BB985256204004F55FA


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


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
-- ] 20:35 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 09:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
What about calling it a "political assassination", as for the debate on terrorist group or not these might help: American definition - "The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion or instilling fear." British definition - "Terrorism is the use, or threat, of action which is violent, damaging or disrupting, and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause." -- ] 02:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


== Avraham Steinberg ==
</small>
----
<small>
For what it's worth in my opinion Bernadotte would have been alot fairer to the Arabs then Lehi would have ever been capable of - Jewish extremists are in the same league as Christian extremists or Islamic extremists - i feel extremists of any kind aren't good for anybody.


The last of Bernadotte's assassins, Avraham Steinberg (nicknamed 'Gingi') died this month aged 97. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Just my two .002


== External links modified ==
] 18:31, Aug 20, 2003 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
==About the murder of Bernadotte==


I have just modified 4 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
I guess the statement from the UN security council says it all: "a cowardly act which appears to have been committed by a criminal group of terrorists in Jerusalem while the United Nations representative was fulfilling his peace-seeking mission in the Holy Land"
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120120090933/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_n40/ai_17100953/ to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2751/is_n40/ai_17100953
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120622073547/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/EA66369DAF3BE7E88025649E004395C8 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/EA66369DAF3BE7E88025649E004395C8
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/ab14d4aafc4e1bb985256204004f55fa%21OpenDocument%26Highlight%3D0%2CBernadotte%2Cprogress
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/d744b47860e5c97e85256c40005d01d6/48c06a0c497863f1852560c2005beb32%21OpenDocument


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
One should remember that the council's statement could have been vetoed by the US, Israels best friend, and as the US choose not to one may take it as the view the international community has on the murder of Bernadotte. That someone wants to dispute that is as it always is with criminals, the law it not for me. ] 11:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
:At the time, I don't know if the US and Israel were necessarily that close. As I remember, the USSR was Israel's main supporter in the early days. But, yeah. Why Bernadotte? Of all people. --] 06:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 21:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
== Felix Kersten and the forged letter ==


== External links modified ==
I deleted this:
: However, it's been claimed that Bernadotte refused to rescue Jews, and the Jews that were included were there in spite of his refusal and as a result of pressure from ] and Himmler's doctor ] <nowiki><ref> The Kersten memoirs, 1940-1945, (1956); Hugh Trevor-Roper, The Last Days of Hitler (1971); Baruch Nadal, Bernadotte's murder (1968); Ofer Regev, Prince Of Jerusalem (2006); </ref></nowiki>
This is based on a story which was long ago debunked. Felix Kersten, who was Himmler's masseur, was a notorious conman. Amongst other things, he convinced Belgium to award him a medal for foiling a Nazi plan to deport the entire population of Belgium when in fact there had never been such a plan. (I might have misremembered the details of that incident slightly.) After the war he produced a letter appearing to have been written by Bernadotte. It contained things like "I do not want to take any Jews." and "Your 'V' weapon is not hitting London well. I leave you a sketch with English military targets." Several historians, including Hugh Trevor Roper (later taken in by the "Hitler Diaries"), were convinced that the letter was genuine. However, when the letter was examined by the forensic division of Scotland Yard they found that it was typed on Kersten's own typewriter. The story of this letter can be found in detail in A. Ilan, Bernadotte in Palestine, 1948 (London: Macmillan, 1989). --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 10:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:this fact was reaffrimed later. If you think it's debunked, you can add your info on the matter. It's sourced material that cite numerous facts on the issue, much more than what you seem to think. you can't blank out things you don't like. ] 03:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


I have just modified 3 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
::Yeah, nice try... Here is an infinitely more reputable source than Himmler's masseur who refers to such claims as "obvious lies" and backs up the claim with facts from the World Jewish Congress . So the scurrilous lies are out and any attempts to return them will be treated as vandalism. --] 08:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110103072620/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/A9A8DA193BD46C54852560E50060C6FD to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/A9A8DA193BD46C54852560E50060C6FD
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222215045/http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/23E5F866FE7393B585256A680061B348 to http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/23E5F866FE7393B585256A680061B348
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060622125327/http://www.ushmm.org/remembrance/survivoraffairs/memory/detail.php?content=friedman to http://www.ushmm.org/remembrance/survivoraffairs/memory/detail.php?content=friedman


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
:::this is not even a source. Why don't you read the book first ? Now to clarify this business.
The information about the rescue missions of Bernadotte is based only entirely '''after his own books''' which came out immediately after the war and about witnesses who saw him standing in their way to the rescue. Many scholars have determined that Berndaotte objected to the rescue of Jews and has attempted to convince Himmler not to include Jews among those waiting to be resecued. In the end he did rescue Jews among the rescues (that's why your "quote" is irrelevant) but only because of Himmler's pressure. This is why he can't possibly be in the same list of "people who rescued Jews" but rather "people who were forced to rescue Jews". This is why Yad Vashem also didn't recognise his "rescue" and this fact is sourced with numerous scholars in the article. ] 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
::::By "scholars", do you mean "people with an axe to grind against Bernadotte"? Try finding some actual, reputable sources to back up this preposterous claim. Until then, it is out. --] 09:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 08:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
::::The sources cited are all reputable. Try finding a source contradicting these books perhaps. Not out at all. ] 09:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
::::: Amitzur Ilan is a very respected historian, and I cited his book already. If you take time to look at it, you will see how he debunks Trevor Roper's position on this very thoroughly. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
:::::: You don't seem to understand the concept of ] and no ]. If you have sources that contradict other sources, you can add them. '''You can not blank''' out material. Moreover, the '''lastest research''' is Ofer Regev's which prove that Bernadotte was forced to take the Jews, and debunks your theory completely. That's a book from this year. ] 11:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
:::::::: I think you need to think a little harder about the idea of making a prima facie case for your claim. The opinions of a handful of idealogues doesn't pass the laugh test. You can't take an extreme view posited by a couple of kooks and then demand that other people debunk it. Lots of people believe that the moon landings never happened, but you won't see anything in the ] article about these fringe views. If you want to start a separate page on ] surrounding Bernadotte, then feel free to do so. But this stuff has no place in the main article. --] 11:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160416175807/http://images.google.com/hosted/life/f83b1c6155c80e80.html to https://images.google.com/hosted/life/f83b1c6155c80e80.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
:::::I don't see how you can call the memoirs of one of Himmler's lackeys (and an established liar) "reputable" as a source. --] 10:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
:::::3 differnet scholars have established this fact using different evidence, see below. quoting Zero's rhetorics is also not very useful, especially now that you violated ]. ] 10:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 04:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
:::::::I can only assume that your definition of "scholar" is different from everyone else's if you seriously consider Kersten, Nadal and Regev to be "scholars". --] 10:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


There is an error in the Related Articles section. "Levi" should be "Lehi". <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:: Kersten and Bernadotte had a very public fight over who did what during the war. Kersten became Bernadotte's enemy and that's when he started to make vicious claims about Bernadotte. He wasn't an independent source. It is noteworthy that even those historians who are sympathetic towards Kersten make a point of stating that he was very unreliable as a witness and everything he said needed to be carefully checked. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
: I can't find it. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)


I should have pointed that I see the "Levi" error in the mobile version. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== numerous evidence on the issue ==


The "Levi" error seems to originate from https://m.wikidata.org/Q2904138. I have just fixed it there. I don't see the change reflected in this page, yet. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
The Himmler doctor's claims are only one of a myriad of evidence on the issue. For example, Regev in his recent book (page 184) brings a quote of a recorded interview with Ian Holm , the Danish refugee minister. This also confirms the allegations towards Bernadotte which were elaborated in the previous books cited. ] 09:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Now it is correct, "Lehi". <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Ian Holm?! The British actor? --] 10:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


== Correction to Bernadotte travel and negotiation on release of French women, 1945 ==
:::valueable comment. what's with the spacing ? these are all serious specialists on the issue. Read Trevor-Roper. ] 11:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


I do not have enough edits to qualify to make corrections for this article. Nevertheless, I wish to point one problem (completely unrelated to the Arab-Israeli issue) that needs correction.
::::I'm just wondering why you think a British actor was the Danish Immigration Minister. Given Kersten's antipathy towards Bernadotte and his "arm's-length" relationship with reality, I'm also wondering why you think he is a valid source. Though I see you've dropped the fantasy that these men are "scholars". --] 11:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Bernadotte’s write-up contains this paragraph:
:::::I hope when you come back from your ban, your edits will be more frutiful. ] 11:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


“Bernadotte recounted the White Buses mission in his book The End. My Humanitarian Negotiations in Germany in 1945 and Their Political Consequences, published on June 15, 1945 in Swedish. In the book, Bernadotte recounts his negotiations with Himmler and others, and his experience at the Ravensbrück concentration camp.”
:::::::From your point of view, I doubt you will see them that way. But that's just proof that I'm doing the right thing. I'm still waiting for you to explain Ian Holm's relevance to this issue though. ;-> --] 09:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


The first problem is the book title. The one given is correct-- but only for the original Swedish title translated into English. When it was published in English and other languages the title was changed and is cited further down as:
I came here to do some research on UN personnel who were killed trying to bring peace to troubled region and I have to say Amoruso, your being even ruder and more arrogtant than Norman. And your wrong about Bernadotte. He was a good man who gladly saved lots of Jewish people and was trying to save lots more but was killed for doing it. Shame on you for repeating lies about him. What are you related to one of those Bernadotte haters? --] 12:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:that's helpful. ], ]. ] 12:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


Bernadotte, Folke (1945). The Curtain Falls. Translated by Count Eric Lewenhaupt. New York: A. A. Knopf. LCCN 45008956. (Swedish title: Slutet.)
::I'll take arrogant over stupid any day. --] 09:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


Here’s the problem: If you search for a copy of “The End: My Negotiations et al” you cannot find it except in the Library of Congress. You can’t buy it anywhere; no library can lend you a copy. It more or less doesn’t exist. That’s because the tile was changed to the second version, which are variations based on “The Curtain Falls.” The write-up needs to make clear that “The End” is “The Curtain Falls.” It does not currently do this in at least two places. This must be fixed and made clear. Also, the full title of the book needs to be given: It is “The Curtain Falls: The Last Days of the Third Reich.” You can find it many places, such as Amazon, https://www.amazon.com/Curtain-Falls-Last-Third-Reich-ebook/dp/B01BXA10OK/ref=sr_1_6?dchild=1&keywords=the+curtain+falls&qid=1596123477&s=books&sr=1-6
:::You're also in violation of ]. Hope you're not looking for another ban, the 7th. ] 09:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


Here is the second problem: The Misplaced Pages write-up quoted above says “...and his experience at the Ravensbrück concentration camp.”


In fact, the book does NOT mention “his experience” at Ravensbruck; there is no indication anywhere in this book that he ever went near the place.
::::No, actually, I'm not. I was referring to myself - saying that I would rather be arrogant than stupid. I wasn't referring to anyone BUT myself and therefore it wasn't a personal attack. --] 20:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


The first of only two references says this : “He also showed genuine interest in my proposal that the Swedish Red Cross be allowed to remove all French women interned at the Ravensbruck concentration camp. He said that he not only assented to this, but that he also wished us to remove the women of all nationalities, as the camp in question was shortly to be evacuated. I promised him that I would immediately give our detachment orders to this effect.”
== Protected ==


The second reference on the very next page says: “I departed for Friedrichsruh immediately after breakfast. After a short visit to our headquarters, where I made arrangements for the removal of the women interned at Ravensbruck, I started for Denmark to be precise, for the small town of Padborg, just north of the Danish-German frontier. There I had the opportunity of inspecting the excellent arrangements made by the Danish Red Cross and the Danish authorities for the reception and quartering of prisoners before they were removed to other places in Denmark.”
I've protected this page, and intend to unprotect it in 24 hours. Please see my comments on ]. I think it would be best to leave this article be for a short time, and resume editing when cooler heads may prevail. Thanks -- ]<small>]</small> 11:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


It very clearly says he “made arrangements for” the transfer, and that he immediately left to go not to Ravensbruck but to Padborg.
I agree with the decision to protect but it doesn't seem appropriate to protect a version arrived at through 3rr violations (esp. when sourced material was removed during the course of that violation.) I have restored the article to its pre-3rr version while maintaining the protection. ] ] ] 20:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


There is no other reference to Ravensbruck. A further problem is the date of this conversation, which appears to be April 21 or April 22, 1945. In fact, the first evacuation of French women from Ravensbruck occurred on April 8, and is amply documented in many sources, including the well-documented fact they were greeted at Gare de Lyon by Gen. de Gaulle, on April 22 (and it took the women 16 days to get there). Other women -- the now famous “Lilacs,” Polish Catholics -- were soon evacuated, before August 22. Then, approximately 20,000 to 25,000 other women were sent on a death march across Germany (most did not survive). The Russians arrived at and occupied Ravensbruck on April 30, 1945, when only about 4,000 were left inside.


] (]) 18:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC) Bill Swanson
::If you'd bothered to read the talk page, you'd have seen that the sources for the material in question are academically worthless. If you're not going to contribute positively, I would suggest you not contribute at all. --] 05:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


: Thank you for your comments. Regarding the book, we permit non-English sources and there is no rule again citing the original Swedish edition. On the other hand, English sources of equal reliability are preferred, so the best outcome will be to name and cite the English edition. I believe I have electronic access and I'll work on this. (As an aside, you are incorrect that the original title was used only in Swedish. I located German, Finnish, Danish, Italian, French, Spanish and Esperanto editions using the original title in translation.) ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
:::Will you apply that principle to ''everyone'' who's editing this page? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 05:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Sure, are you volunteering to give us an example of abstention? I can't think of any article that wouldn't be better for you not editing it. --] 09:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:::Just because a user claimed they're worthless don't make them worthless, it was his personal POV. ] 08:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::::Well, since they don't meet ANY standards of scholarship or intellectual integrity, we're all still waiting for you to explain why they should be taken seriously. Sofar, all you have is someone who had a personal beef with Bernadotte and was known to tell extravagant lies, as well as one of the thugs who was responsible for Bernadotte's murder. Can you do better? --] 09:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::Your allegations are baseless. We have different established scholars and experts on the issue, like explained. ] 09:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::Why dont you answer his question, why are you taking such biased material seriously? I think Norman is right and you are wrong. After the prrotect is off I will come back and make sure Kersten material is gone. --] 07:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::::it is not Kersten material. It is historians and experts Trevor Ruper and Ofer Regev material. Sourced and accurate material like this won't be removed. ] 07:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::Ofer Regev isn't a "historian" nor is he an "expert", he is simply pushing his own extremist POV. Trevor-Roper's reputation as a historian in the aftermath of the debacle surrounding the Hitler Diaries isn't on very solid ground and there is no indication that he's an expert on Bernadotte. So, unless you can do better than these guys, you'd best give up the fight to have this ludicrous material inserted. --] 20:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::Actually, they're all in the category of ], ] and ]. Do not blank out sourced material next time. ] 06:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::::You should back up your claim that they're reliable. On what basis do you consider them "reliable". Here's a hint, just because they say things that you are pre-disposed to agree with, that doesn't make them "reliable". --] 06:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

::::::::::::Your wrong. THey're not allowed. Read those things. --] 23:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

== Ofer Regev, Prince of Jerusalem ==

The sourced material which was deleted and will return : Ofer Regev, pages 138-165, 184, numerous evidence presented about the issue. Will be re-introduced. ] 12:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

: Ofer Regev is a writer of popular books and not a historian. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

::Ofer Regev is an historian who added further evidence to the already established facts laid by Trevor Ruper and Baruch Nadal. ] 14:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

::: And Baruch Nadel was a member of Lehi who claimed to have organized the killing of Bernadotte (Cary Stranger, p271). Like that really makes him an unbiased source on Bernadotte! When we start writing articles on someone based on claims by their murderers, that is when Misplaced Pages is dead. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
::::what the is Cary Stranger. Anyway, Regev approved Trevor Ruper version and added a LOT of evidence. ] 15:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

== NPOV editing ==

NPOV editing does not mean removing cited material that you disagree with. It means finding citations that refute the statement and ADDING them to the article. People can then read the claims, read the citations and come to their own conclusions. If you think a claim is from bad scholarship, find a citation that says as much and add that as well. It is not the job of[REDACTED] editors to decide which claim is true. The discussion should be about how much weight the claims and counter claims should get. Even discussions about weight should be determined by finding citations. Both sides of this debate should be working together to present an well-balanced presentation of the controversy. If you think that you know the "truth" you probably should be putting your efforts elsewhere. -- ] 08:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
:well said, this is what I was aiming at, as I didn't mind the addition of more material on the subject, but rather the blanking of the existant material. ] 08:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

::Interesting position. Some contributor adds a statement

::"However, it's been claimed that Bernadotte refused to rescue Jews, and the Jews that were included were there in spite of his refusal and as a result of pressure from Himmler and Himmler's doctor Felix Kersten"

::without mentioning that the source cited, Felix Kersten, is generally considered a not very reliable source, and without listing other sources for the statement (it is references to two other books, but no information regarding what those books says about where the claim comes from). And then the proof is on the rest of us. Again, interesting position - but not something that would raise the average readers respect for Misplaced Pages I guess.

::To be very clear, I have not seen any statement from reliable sources that confirms what is claimed regarding Bernadotte. If it can be verified - we should of course have it in the article, but as far as I can see we have some mileage before that. ] 07:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

:::I would be adding direct quotes from Regev soon. The primary evidence on the issue is not based on Kersten but at more parties involved. ] 07:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

:::I completely agree with the comments above made by Ulflarsen.] 20:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

== Unprotected ==

Article unprotected now -- ] 05:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

== Regarding Zero's blanking ==

You're only allowed to add material if you think it's relevant. Your mass blanking of sourced material is not allowed. If you later claim that it's vandalism to restore the version before your blanking that's more bad faith from your part. Your claims that the information was not according to the sources is false. ] 23:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

: I didn't blank anything. I replaced poor material by good stuff copied directly from the documents themselves. And you obviously never looked at Bernadotte's "diary". --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

::Obviously i did and i quoted what was said in it. you can not blank what you don't like. these are all facts. ] 02:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

::: So the passage "When proposing an offer..." was quoted from the source you gave was it? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems user Zero has done a good job showing that the accusations regarding Bernadotte are just that, accusations, while you have not been able to come up with reliable sources. Kersten is not reliable and has been shown to falsify documents, Trevor-Roper relied on the former - and the last two seems to have a axe to grind with Bernadotte due to his position as UN mediator in Palestine. So I suggest you revert back, and I also suggest you remove the similar accusations from the article about the ]. ] 05:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

:I'm afraid that's Zero and apparently your POV and OR. Misplaced Pages is about citing ] and that's exactly what was done. I do intend to quote directly from Regev's book - he has evidence much different to Kersten from other indepedent sources - soon when I get the book to my hands again. Removing them is vandalism. ] 05:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

::You have stated that you will quote from the book for some two weeks now, without actually doing it. I suggest you remove the allegations regarding Bernadotte until you can show proof here that he indeed was against taking jews with the White buses.
:::Sorry, I didn't have time but I'll get the book this week. I don't have to cite directly from it of course, I cited the relevant pages. ] 01:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there's something you fail to understand. Saying "seems to have an an axe to grind with bernadotte" or attacking credibility is your ] which is fabricated by Zero0000. Sourced material can not be blanked out just because someone doesn't like it. You can contradict it but you can't blank it out. There's no problem to include Zero's quotations as well on the issue. The problem is when he starts vandalising the page enforcing his own ]. Both opinions can be heard, also Kersten and the allegations that he fabricated documents and so on. All this should be addressed. He can't decide for the reader, which is what he consistently did. ] 04:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

:First, I think Zero has done a great job on improving the section on Bernadotte as a UN mediator including adding primary references. Second, Amuroso's accusations on Zero for vandalism is very inappropriate given that Amuroso himself recently blanked the improvements of the above-mentioned section. ] 20:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


== UN mediator == == UN mediator ==
I think the sentence:
:Bernadotte had a close relationship to British delegates and especially to Abdullah, king of Transjordan.
is irrelevant in this context (point-by-point lists of the conditions of the proposals) and should be removed from the paragraph. ] 20:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
::well it's obviously relevant in SOME bernadotte context. if you feel it belongs in another paragraph, relocate it... it is there since the original edit, and later blanked out by Zero in his massive edit. ] 10:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
:::OK, I suggest this sentence is then moved to another context, either the "Assassination" section or perhaps a concluding section covering the legacy of Folke Bernadotte. By the way, are you sure this a correct interpretation of the source? It seems strange that Bernadotte would have bluntly admitted that he was biased towards the British and the Jordanians? It should be noted that for diverse political reasons Bernadotte has often been indicted with sometimes quite different and mutually exclusive claims (e.g. biased towards both the Germans and the British, which for obvious reasons seems quite unlikely).
::::No, of course he doesn't say it. But it's obvious from the text (his meetings), and mention by many scholars who looked at the diary too. It doesn't say he was biased btw, simply that he had a close relationship.] 10:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I deleted that sentence for a reason. Unlike Amoruso, who seems to be copying citations from an unnamed source in violation of ], I have a copy of this "diary" (actually a journal always intended for publication) of Bernadotte and so can check the claim. Turning to page 164, we find at the top of the page that B got a telegram from Abdullah asking to see him. This was towards the end of the truce in early July. B then went to Amman where "King Abdullah expressed his extreme uneasiness at the prospect of the war breaking out afresh." That's about it. There is nothing here about a close relationship and nothing to suggest more than the relationship one would hope an official mediator to have with the various parties. On other pages B describes similar meetings with Jewish leaders (eg. Shertok on p202, a delegation of rabbis on p142, etc etc). In summary, this sentence is an attack on Bernadotte that is not supported by the source. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
::Please remain civil and cool. I have the diary too and this does support it. Your interpretation is false, teh very fact he went on private meetings with abdallah more than numerous times proves it. If you want , I can name other scholars who have made same assertion (like Katz). ] 11:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
::: So you copied the quote on page 114 from the diary as you cited, is that right? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
::::No , actually I saw references to his meetings with abdallah and with british representatives in several places including Katz's Days of Fire on page 449. I went on checked the reference, confirmed it's true and wrote a summary. Katz depicts how Berndaotte flew immediatly to Amman without hesistation upon a request from Abdallah, afterwards he went straight to the british embassy, and it's collaborated in the diary. ] 12:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
::::: Katz. Why I am not surprised? He would be delighted to know that you have promoted him from "historian" to "scholar". Not bad for someone with no credentials at all. Bernadotte's job required him to be available to all the parties to the conflict and he was, to all of them including the Jewish leaders, the Arab leaders, the British, the Americans, the French, everyone. Not to do so would have been dereliction of duty. His whole book records him running from one meeting to another. As for "private" meetings, why didn't Katz describe Bernadotte's private meeting with Goldman, Vice-President of the Jewish Agency, that Bernadotte devotes four pages to (compared to a few lines for Abdullah) and conclude that Bernadotte was too close to the Zionists? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 12:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::: Your lies about Katz have been refuted many times in the past. He's an established historian with full credentials of course and that was already proven. Your further bad faith remarks and ] is of no interest. ] 14:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, since you always check your sources personally, please tell us where in "The Kersten memoirs, 1940-1945, (1956)" and "Hugh Trevor-Roper, The Last Days of Hitler (1971)" we can read that Bernadotte refused to rescue Jews. They are sources that you brought. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 14:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

== Lehi center ==

I cited Amitzur Ilan for the claim that the Lehi center decided on the assassination of Bernadotte because it seems the best researched. For this point Ilan cites interviews with Nathan Yelin-Mor and Yisrael Eldad (two of the central three), Yoshua Zetler (Lehi operations chief in Jerusalem), Yehoshua Cohen (the assassin), Stanley Goldfoot (Lehi intelligence chief) and Meshulam Markover (another of the assassins), and some other sources. I also cited Bowyer Bell's article because he also names Shamir as admitting it. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 13:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

== Section to be added ==
I'm working on a section which will discuss the connection of Bernadotte to Himler and whether he refused to accept Jewish refugees or not. This will include Trevor Ruper and a letter he cites , on 13 March 1945 , from Bernadotte to Himler where he says : "My attitude towards Jews is same as yours". I'm hoping that the section won't be blanked for POV reasons. If there are sources who contradict the historian Trevor Ruper or the citations and sources brought by Regev, they can be addressed in the same section. I will add the section when I finalize work on it soon. ] 14:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

: The letter you mention is the same one that was proved by Gerald Fleming (with a little help from Scotland Yard) to have been typed on Felix Kersten's own typewriter. (Ilan cites J. Fleming, Die Herkunft des "Bernadotte Brief" an Himmler von Marz 1945, ''Zeitgeschichte'', no. 4, 1978; that is ''Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte'' no. 4, vol. 26.) This story is well known and not disputed by any mainstream historians ''including Trevor-Roper''. (Even earlier, in 1956, Trevor-Roper wrote that he could not authenticate it.) If Regev's case is built on evidence like that, it is just as worthless as Danny Rubinstein wrote in Haaretz recently ("riddled with inaccuracies, large and small", "mistakes are everywhere", "serious distortions", etc ). As for Trevor-Roper, he was fooled by Kersten and later he admitted it. Trevor-Roper in 1995: "I am not certain that Bernadotte refused to take Jews. I have some reservations about the documentation here. If he did, it may well have been that he simply had no instructions except in respect of Norwegians and Danes." (Barbara Amiel, ''The National Interest'', Summer 1995). Did Regev cite Trevor-Roper's retraction? Why not? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 15:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

::Yes, Danny Rubenstein and others can also be added in, in fact I intended to to do. You can comment on the section too when it's finalised. ] 15:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify what Rubenstein says about mistakes has nothign to do with Berndaotte's nazi relations. As for the nazi relations, rubenstein says this :

One of the more serious distortions in the book is Regev's portrayal of Bernadotte as a supporter of the Nazis during World War II. '''Many scholars have explored this claim, but very few have come to the conclusion that it was anything more than perhaps a tendency.''' Most say there is no basis for such a claim whatsoever.''' Ofer Regev not only describes Bernadotte as pro-Nazi''', but makes him out to be a paid Nazi spy who supplied the Germans with information on where their bombs fell. In other words, he worked for them as a kind of scout, to help them improve their aim. Bernadotte, according to Regev, was an anti-Semitic Nazi agent who traded in blood (while working to free Scandinavian prisoners from the camps toward the end of the war), and an idiot, to boot. With respect to all these allegations, '''scholars seem to agree that Bernadotte was no great brain. He also bragged a lot. But he was certainly no war criminal''', as one might think from this book.

:Indeed I will not make the case that Berndaotte is a war criminal, but he also isn't a Jewish saver. ] 15:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

::Incidentally, I will also add official Lehi responses over the assassination in addition to the existant. ] 15:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can prove that Bernadotte was against transporting jews it should of course be in the article. However, as far as I can see there is little evidence to that, and a lot to the contrary. He did bring along a lot of jews with the White Buses expedition - although the main aim of it was to transport Danes, Norwegians and Swedish spouses of German men to safety in Sweden. Regarding his alledged nazi sympaties - he was married to an american woman, he was close to the americans and had close contact with them, both before, during and after the war. As most people during the second world war he was probably also first and foremost a citizen of his own country - that is he followed the official and unofficial Swedish line; and as we know this changed as the war changed. As far as I can see the gravest critique that can be brought against Bernadotte and the White Buses is that he accepted to transport some 2 thousand prisoners out of Neuengamme, in order to facilitate Danes and Norwegians, as Ingrid Lomfors has shown in her book "Blind Fläck". This is well described in the Norwegian article about the White Buses and will soon be in the English one as well, as I am on my way in translating it. ] 10:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


== Number of prisoners saved ==

Changed the number, as during World War II the ] expedition saved around 15 thousand, those are the numbers stated from the Swedish Red Cross. In addition another 10 thousand were transported out of Germany to Sweden after the German surrender, also stated by the Swedish Red Cross. ] 10:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

== Konrad Meinerzhagen ==

We have a quote from "British intelligence officer Konrad Meinerzhagen" via Yediot. I cannot find any other reference to such a person (Google gives exactly 0 hits for several reasonable spellings), and strongly suspect it is an error for ], who was indeed a British intelligence officer who wrote a well-known diary. He was one of the most famous Christian Zionists. One day I'll look in his diary to check but it isn't worth a special trip to the library. Someone else, feel free. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

::: Hmmm, I notice that our article ] says that some of his diary entries were fabricated. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 07:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

==Reverts==

Amoruso, we have a source saying that many Jews were included among those saved. Nobody here has denied that. That means it's not dubious. You apparently have a source saying that this wasn't his intention, but that's a different issue. The "dubious" label, where you've placed it, is simply inaccurate. I don't know about previous compromises, but clearly this is not an appropriate solution.

The statement that he is perceived as an anti-Zionist is also unsourced and provocative, which is why I removed it as well. I also changed the style to make it NPOV. You're asserting things in an ambiguous manner which makes it unclear whether they are facts or simply Lehi's perception of him. Are you unaware of this? It creates bias in the article. That's why I made the changes. If you disagree, please discuss rather than simply reverting. ] 22:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Response:
*dubious tag - I agree with you, sorry.
*I'll make it clear it's Lehi's perception. allright?
*I'm re-adding Richard Meinertzhagen. The fact he's possibly lying can be dealt with but it's not for us to remove him. ] 19:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks for the response. The continued edits relate to NPOV, as explained on history. Also, Lehis' motives are relevant to an extent, of course, in as much as they're relevant to Bernadotte's life, but they're not relevant simply as the motives of Lehi. I'd suggest a general concern with giving too much space to a subject's assassins, simply because they assassinated him. An extended discussion of their justifications would go on their page, not on his, unless the accusations were broad and significant to his life, which they appear not to be. ] 20:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

::Well, it should go into a page about the assassination I would think, but that doesn't exist and this is long enough if it's undue weight concerned. What I think is that this is not just a murder or so - it's a controversial event... in history. So I think their views reflect real views of Israel's society and its history and events that led to its independence and these views should be represented especially in light that a lot is missing in the article and we're still thinking how to bring that into question - information that in some ways make the assassination entirely justifibable in some views, so I don't think that it's wrong to represent their views. ] 20:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see that what you removed didn't fit what you wanted to remove - the source about close relationship to Abdallah for instance. And again, I really don't think it's undueweight to explain the opinion of Lehi on the section called "assassination". I really don't see how that's possible here, and I don't know why it bothers you. I hope you agree now. The citations you requested is there - it's all in the ynet. ] 21:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

:1. I removed exactly what I intended to remove: the unsourced statement that he "was perceived by members of Lehi as an anti-Zionist who also had relations with Nazi officers during the World War." In addition to being unsourced, this statement is extremely provocative and biased. It is, indeed, a classic smear, lacking any substance, and presented entirely to associate him with Nazis, without explaining or substantiating the smear in any way.

:2. Beyond that, the bias is in your syntax, which conflates an assertion of opinion with one of fact in a way that makes unclear which is which. This is classic biased writing: "Amuroso is perceived by Mackan as a partisan hack, who also often finds his partisan edits reverted." Does Amuroso actually often find his partisan edits reverted? Are they actually partisan? The implication, of course, is in the ambiguity. Another biased version: "Amuroso is perceived by Mackan as someone who engages in extensive partisan hackery, who also has a head, two eyes and a nose." Notice here how it is actually the first assertion which is rhetorically bolstered by the subsequent obvious facts. A nonbiased version, incidentally: "Amuroso has been accused of Mackan of being a partisan hack, which Mackan suggests is evidenced by Amuroso's edits often being reverted. Amuroso denies that his edits are often reverted, calling it an instance of "the pot calling the kettle black," which Mackan also denies." See? NPOV. Why? Because it says what it says, and it's clear, and it doesn't endorse either view, and it doesn't create extraneous accusatory implications.

:3. The rest of your edit suffers from similar bias and simply awkward wording (I don't speak Hebrew, so you got me there). For example: "Since Bernadotte had a close relationship to British delegates and especially to ], king of ] <ref> ''To Jerusalem'', p.164 , see Katz, Shmuel, Days of Fire, page 449 </ref> in Lehi's opinion, this implied to them that Bernadotte was serving British interests in opposition to the interests of Israel." First, note that all of this information was included in my revision. The simple change: removing the implicit endorsement of Lehi's allegations. Your sentences on Meinertzhagen I retained. Finally, your last sentence, "He was assassinated primarly because of what members of Lehi saw as his close relationships and involvement in the conflict and their fear of the fate of Jerusalem. " was similarly retained, except for the awkward bias. To say he was assasinated for what Lehi saw as his position is again ambiguous as to whether this IS his position, or whether this is simply what Lehi thought. That kind of ambiguity is the essence of biased writing, which is why I removed it, while retaining the information.

:4. The main point: to be NPOV, you have to either say something or not say it, depending on whether the statement is justified. You can't simply make it ambiguous and call it a compromise. This is why I am removing the bias from your writing while retaining the underlying information. Interestingly, you appear to think that the assassination was justified, and want that reflected in the article. Again, though, the way to do that isn't simply by including language that implies the justification. If that's what you want, then say "Many Israelis feel that the assassination was in fact justified, for the following reasons." Then we would have a section on why many people also consider this belief evidence of Israeli's support for terrorism. So does all this really belong in the article? ] 22:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC) (oops, didn't sign in for the edit, and you're right that I deleted the source on accident).

This is all a bit intricate to me at this time of night. I want to assume goof faith ] with you so I won't bicker with you over each word. But your whole argument starts with a flaw. You say the line with the Nazis wasn't sourced. It was, like I explained before, it's sourced to the ynet source. It's simply placed only once in the end of the paragraph. ] 03:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

: "To Jerusalem" does not support the claim it is being cited for. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't speak Hebrew. Would you translate the passage that allegedly says he had too close a relationship with Nazis? Sourced or not, I am extremely skeptical of this statement, which as I said, is a classic smear, made particularly absurd by the fact that he was a /diplomat/. Clearly he was negotiating with Himmler; is that what they mean by a close relationship? Or is the reader just supposed to let his imagination run? This is not an off-hand opinion; this is an extremely inflammatory factual assertion. It's a little bombshell, as I think you well understand. To insert it as an offhand comment, whether sourced or not, is I believe highly inappropriate, unless the substantiation or refuation of the factual assertion itself can also be included.

For the reasons noted above, though, I also think such an extended discussion of the motives of his assassins, simply because they assassinated him, is inappropriate. That is, unless you can show wide-spread support for his assassination?

2. The reason I included the preliminary sentence is because the paragraph is very unnatural without it. Without it, you go directly from saying a man was assassinated, to offering various motives for assassinating him, without explicitly saying that's what you're doing. This is offensive and POV, and implies an endorsement of the alleged motivations themselves. This is very important, and something widely overlooked in Misplaced Pages. If you're going to have a set of contentious arguments, you can't just jump directly into the arguments. You have to say "There are a set of arguments on this topic. Here are some of them." I have a strong feeling that by saying preliminarily that "The motives were thought to be political," you think I'm trying to undermine the arguments themselves. I'm not; I'm trying to make it neutral. The reason it feels like I'm undermining the argument is because I'm eliminating what would otherwise be an implied /endorsement/ that these were actual characteristics of Bernadotte which might have motivated someone to assassinate him, in addition to an implied endorsement that there were legitimate reasons for an assassination. The first are contentious facts, while the latter is a fringe view; clearly neither should be endorsed in that way. (As I said, if you want to suggest some people think the assassination was legitimate, then that's what you have to say )
3. I appreciate the removal of some of the ambiguity, which is an improvement, but I do not believe that saves it.

4. Lehi "frowned"? Heh, interesting word for gunning a diplomat to death, no? ] 15:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

:So, I took out the Nazi allegation and the anti-Zionist allegation. The anti-Zionist accusation, if it is in the source, is unnecessary, as we already said they didn't think he was pro-Israel enough. Was there actually a prominent accusation that he was an anti-Zionist? What does that even mean? That he opposed the existence of Israel? Or something else? It's unclear, unnecessary, and inflammatory. I also removed the statement that Lehi frowned and feared for the future of Jerusalem, which is self-evident, and simply serves to legitimize a fringe position. In shortened form, I don't think the preliminary sentence that this relates to motives is necessary, so I left that out.

:Again, you may think Lehi was justified to assassinate Bernadotte, but I think it is pretty clear that this is a fringe position. I do not believe that view deserves special validation in his article. I think the discussion of their motives should be short and clinical, which is how it now is. ] 16:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A measure of how seriously the Nazi-connection allegation should be taken is provided by the timing. Pretty much all of Bernadotte's war-time activity was publicised well in advance of his appointment as UN mediator, yet he was almost universally lauded as a hero for saving people. (I only included "almost" for lack of knowledge; actually I don't know any contrary examples at all.) After he started his Palestine task and it became clear that we was less than 100% behind the Israeli position, people who didn't like that started looking for ways of discrediting him. Therefore these accusations need to be regarded as belonging to the Israeli-Arab polemic and not as objective judgments. Another proof of that is that these allegations are only ever made by people whose position in the Zionist right wing is very clear. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

:See ].
:<strike>Mackan79, instead of removing the sentences again and again, rephrase them any way you want but keep the fact what the source says. ] 12:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
"Was there actually a prominent accusation that he was an anti-Zionist? What does that even mean? That he opposed the existence of Israel" - yes there was. This is what the source says, we can't remove it by going like a merry-go-around and every time say that it's not written well. You can rephrase it anyway you like but the allegations exists, it's sourced and it stays. This was the allegations. You first said that it sounded like it's true and not like Lehi said it, later you said it's fringe - well this is the opinion of the assassins and it's noteworthy and it's not fringe at all - it was supported, then you say it's "inflammatory"? well it's not, it's only claimed that he is by these people, it's noteworthy and it's sourced. There's no justification to remove it just because you don't like it, sorry. Cheers,</strike> ] 12:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
::I'm not sure anymore it's what the source said. I read it and couldn't find it. It says the Jerusalem thing so I kept it. I'll search for the source I meant and was probably removed somehow between edits. ] 12:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Since I agree with ] that it's not clear whether he was pro-nazi or not from the sources because some were attacked, I will attempt to write a npov balanced version but it need mention. ] 12:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


Amuroso,

1. Please note that you seem to have accidentally removed the cite to the 6500-11000 Jews statement that I just provided, which is the same as the first reference.

2. I strongly oppose your extended discussion of all criticism of Bernadotte in a section about his assassination. The views of the assassins themselves is clearly fringe, as they've repeatedly been denounced by their own government. You may think I'm being POV, but let's be straight about the fact that you are the one admitedly trying to legitimize an assassination of what from all accounts appears to have been a very well respected diplomat.

3. The very source you provide clearly states that it is a fringe view. As it states "One of the more serious distortions in the book is Regev's portrayal of Bernadotte as a supporter of the Nazis during World War II. Many scholars have explored this claim, but very few have come to the conclusion that it was anything more than perhaps a tendency. Most say there is no basis for such a claim whatsoever." Did you read that? "Distortion." "Very few" give it any credibility at all, and even then very little. <i>"Most say there is no basis for such a claim whatsoever."</i> This is the source you provided; how much clearer could it be that this is a fringe view? Fringe views are not to be included in Misplaced Pages. Your source says this is a fringe view. So far, your support for this statement is -1.

4. Now, as to some of the information you included, like alleged criticism from the Israeli press, etc., and as a NPOV discussion of how his work was received, I would be receptive to this appearing in the previous section on his work. This, indeed, would be the appropriate place to include if there had been wide-spread condemnation of Bernadotte's work. It should not appear in the section on his assassination. A section on someone's assassination is not the appropriate place to include every negative fringe statement that was ever said about them. This should be obvious.

5. Your use of citations is repeatedly wildly inaccurate. Your statement "Some sources suggesting that Bernadotte was anti Jewish have been refuted while other allegations still exist," for instance, is completely inaccurate based on the source. Your source provides a statement that Regev thinks he's anti-semitic, but also that there is no available credible evidence for this. Your statement should be "Regev has called Bernadotte anti-semitic, but this has been called a distortion." Or, "A recent book called Bernadotte anti-semitic, but most of the scholarly literature strongly refutes this." Of course, that would be absurd, though, to cite to one person simply because he calls him anti-semitic, unless this is a prominent view. Your source, however, suggests that it's not a prominent view at all. Your summary of the source, also, is blatantly biased and POV. Thus, I removed it.

6. Your statement that there has been a debate about whether Bernadotte was reluctant to include Jews amongst those saved is <i>completely unsourced.</i> This is why I removed it. In addition, at this point, we have strong evidence that even if this view does exist, that it is a fringe view, not suitable for wikipedia. Until you have a source, however, the statement clearly cannot be there.

7. Note that my last edit included a sentence at the end that the issue remains controversial in Israel, where some people feel the assassination was justified. If you'd like to make some change to that, I would also be receptive to that being edited.

The basic point of it all: The fact that you and Regev think this guy was a total a-hole and deserved everything that came to him doesn't mean that this is a view which belongs on Misplaced Pages. Your suggestion that simply because a criticism was published that it belongs anywhere on Misplaced Pages is clearly wrong. On issues relating to the Middle East, <i>any</i> important figure is going to have numerous unfair accusations made against them. Misplaced Pages can't include them all, and it's policy makes clear that it doesn't. As of yet, you have failed to make any case whatsoever that these allegations represent anything more than a fringe position. As of yet, the source you've provided clearly states that they ARE fringe allegations. It would be awfully nice if you could step back and realize that you are in a small minority who thinks that Bernadotte deserved to be assassinated, and that this does not entitle you to place a prominent discussion of it in Bernadotte's[REDACTED] bio. ] 19:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

: Mackan79, thanks for describing the situation so clearly. I disagree with you on one point: some statement of Lehi's motivations is appropriate even though it is a fringe opinion. This has to come from a reliable source that quotes a contemporary claim, not from a ''post-facto'' justification written by Lehi's supporters. The main motivation was that Lehi feared Bernadotte would negotiate a settlement that Lehi could not accept (their demand was for a Jewish commonwealth on both sides of the Jordan River), and they thought (incorrectly) that the Jewish leaders were about to cave in. Other matters, like Lehi's insinuations about Bernadotte's war-time role, were propaganda designed to discredit him and there is no evidence that they were an important part of Lehi's motivation. This is clearly stated in the serious literature on the assassination. I'll try to bring a summary with sources, but editing in the face of Amoruso's continual disruption is a pain. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

::Absolutely, I agree that some discussion is appropriate, and indeed, if the discussion were remotely NPOV, I could imagine one slightly longer. My objection, as you clearly understand, is mostly to the general POV attempt here to tarnish Bernadotte and justify the assassination in any way possible. It is as a list of inaccurately sourced, dubious, non sequitor and POV attacks that I oppose the extended discussion. As I said, I think even some of the post-hoc stuff could actually be included too, but simply shouldn't go as a justification for the assassination; it should be included, if at all, in a NPOV discussion of how his work was received. Such a discussion, too, could be relevant and beneficial to the article. I'm simply not going to move these attacks into such a section because such a section should be constructed with at least some semblance of neutrality, which lacking the background, I can't provide. Also, the material provided so far is almost all unsourced.] 06:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The source shows it's not a fringe view at all, it's a legitimate debate of course. You have also censored out alot of other sources too like the Jerusalem/Palstine Post source. You seem to be intent on removing the allegations regarding his nazist tendencies, something which Rubinstein himself admits, so it's not only not a fringe review, but a consensus. You can reinstate the ref to the Jews but do it properly - I don't think see ref 1 is part of the manual of style. A final note - I will ignore personal attacks, but please note that the debate is something that's been discussed here and it has to do with Trevor Ruper and others - this is representing the facts in a concise NPOV matter. Your claim that it's not NPOV is of course a complete false claim. Please note that if you wish to rephrase something you can do so. But blanking out sections repeatedly is not allowed in wikipedia. Cheers. ] 11:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

:1. Rubinstein does not "admit" "nazist tendencies" in the article you cite. He called this a "distortion," and said that "most" scholars "say there is no basis for the claim whasoever." He states that the strongest claim from anyone is that there is some sort of tendency, whatever that means. He does not support this charge. Please reread your source, which you are blatantly misrepresenting. Rubinstein absolutely states there is a concensus: a concensus that the allegations, to any extent, are baseless.

:2. I'm not making up that it's a fringe view. Your very own source states in the clearest terms that it is a fringe view.

:3. I removed the section from the Palestinian post, because as I said, it does not belong in the section on his assassination. Do you disagree? Do you think it must go in the section on his assassination? Do you have evidence that this was the motive for his assassination? If you do, please present it. As I said, I strongly disagree with the idea of including any criticism of him that you can dredge up in the section on his assassination. By all appearances, that's what you are doing. That is why I am removing it. As I also said, if you want to include your material in another appropriate section about the reception to his work, that would be fine, if you can make that section NPOV. I will help you out, despite your belligerence.

:4. You are not entitled to remove a source because you feel the style is incorrect.

:5. It is not your current phrasing which is POV, but the insertion of fringe material and inaccurately sourced statements. If there was something I could rephrase to improve, I would, but that's not the problem. The problem is you are trying to insert a fringe view that he may have been pro-nazi, whatever that means, when the one source you can provide clearly states that this is a thoroughly rejected claim. Please do not continue to insert the information unless you can show why this isn't true. ] 14:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

::Mackan, stop removing material just because you don't like it. If you think it needs to be written to be closer to the source material, do that, but here and elsewhere, you're either simply deleting sourced material, or, worse, rewriting it to say what you want it to say, regardless of what the source actually says. That's not acceptable. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 22:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

:::(moved from SV talk) Are you following me around and harassing me now? In addition to ignoring the discussion and concensus, you removed sources and reverted other substantive changes without explaining why. Why are you antagonizing me? Because I'm too verbose? This seems slightly ridiculous. ] 22:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I'm slightly amazed you've actually stooped to following me around and harassing me. I did not do any of the things you said, and you are making accusations against me without any explanation. I explained in great detail why I removed some of Amoruso's fringe viewpoints from the article. I also retained substantial portions and improved it. You have not responded to any of this, but simply reintroduced it, without any explanation, while also deleting sources and reverting other material with no explanation. I guess I will have to seek an arbitration, or whatever the Misplaced Pages method is, but I find this pretty sad. ] 23:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

==Harassment, Fringe Material==

SV, that information was removed because it is a fringe position, and based solely on a source that says it is a fringe position. This has been discussed in detail above. The suggestion that he was reluctant to save Jews is unsourced. You also moved material relating to the government's criticism into the assassination without explaining, but I have explained why I moved this, because it has to do with the Israeli government's opposition to his work, and no source ties it to the assassination.

I have no idea why you feel you are justified in what you are doing, but I would again ask you to please be Civil, and refrain from following me around and harassing me without discussing the matter in talk. ] 23:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

==Unjustified reverts==

''copy/pasting this from my talk page:''
Hi Humus,

It appears to me that several of you are ganging up on me, in an effort to overpower my contributions. If this is true, I don't know why you think it is justified. I have explained my edits in very great detail, I have refrained from inserting POV material, and have made every effort to have a productive dialogue in the areas where I have contributed. At the same time, I have strongly disagreed with several individuals on the Zionism page, and believe they are refusing to discuss matters openly and fairly, and I find this frustrating. At the same time, I have refrained from insulting them, other than telling them that they are pretending to be dumb, which I have stopped doing. Can you tell me what I'm doing wrong here?

The reversions on Folke Bernadotte strike me as extremely unjustified. Did you read the source? It states extremely clearly that the idea that Bernadotte was anti-semitic is a distortion, which the vast majority thoroughly reject, which he impliedly rejects, and the worst accusations of which are simply some sort of "tendency," which he absolutely does not endorse. What clearer example of a fringe view could you have? The single source says it's a fringe view. Meanwhile, why do you think the Israeli government's statements of bland criticism should go not under his actual diplomacy, but as an apparent justification for the assassination? Do you really believe this is less POV? Whatever it is I did to anger you guys, I take it back. This strikes me as strange and ridiculous. ] 23:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

: Mackan, I am not angry with you at all and I am not responsible for anyone's contribs but my own. Sorry, I don't have time now for long and winding posts. I stand by my edit: that version seems to be supported by refs and less POV. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 00:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

::If you don't have time to explain yourself, why did you come here and revert my edit? That is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. ] 00:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:::I'd add, especially, why would you enter a situation where I'm claiming to be harassed, whether you can verify this or not, as the third editor from the previous page that you know the harassment would be based on? Wouldn't it maybe be better not to jump in as a partisan in such an ongoing dispute, if you don't actually have time to pay attention? It kind of gives the impression that you guys are on a team. ] 00:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:::: I saw a POV edit in a article I keep on my individual watchlist and I reverted it. I don't know what "harassment" or "team" or "you guys" you are talking about. ←] <sup>]]</sup> 00:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::I'm talking about the group that was fighting with me on the Zionism page. This included Jayjg, and SlimVirgin, and you (not that you were fighting, but you were apparently supporting them). Suddenly, the three of you showed up here, reverting what I had done. Maybe you weren't aware of this. The fact that none of you are explaining your edits, though, makes it seem that you're being contentious. If you simply weren't aware, I'll accept that; I'm simply letting you know that it seems incivil to me for someone to come directly after one content dispute and start reverting the same person's edits in another article, while refusing to discuss their reasons. I'm a relatively new editor, at least on contentious articles, but I would have expected that sort of thing would be frowned upon, no? ] 00:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::What are you talking about, that people won't explain their edits? The edits have been explained, and you've been asked to explain yours below, but you won't. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::SV, neither Humus or Jayjg have explained anything at all. Humus said he didn't have time. Your explanation has been to accuse me of deleting sourced material, while refusing to take 2 minutes to read my explanation above. Do you really have no idea why I think you're harassing me? For one thing, you continue to refuse to respond whatsoever to any question I pose to you, while insisting that I answer anything you want to know from me. ] 00:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::::But it isn't two minutes, that's the problem. Your posts are long. Many have commented on this; less really is more when it comes to talk pages. You'll find if you make your points clearly and briefly, without the accompanying accusations, people will read them and likely respond. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 01:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::::::Seriously, SV, it is very easy for you to say posts are too long to read when you have a group of friends who travel around with you and help you revert things either way. Your advice is also meaningless, when you blatantly edit war, and follow me here to throw yourself into a debate and start reverting before even looking at what else you were deleting or looking into the sources to see, oh, I guess they weren't actually sourced after all. Please stop giving me social advice to justify your own violations of Misplaced Pages policy. ] 05:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

==Rubinstein==
Mackan, rather than posting accusations about how you're being harassed, could you please explain succintly why you keep removing the Rubinstein material? Also, are you editing as 207.195.254.167? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:SlimVirgin, do you believe it's appropriate after being in a content dispute in one article, to follow your adversary to another article, and start reverting his material without comment, only to insist that he disregard your behavior, make no comment of it, and politely reexplain his edits which are explained in detail above? I do not think this is appropriate, so I can't further answer your question. You are harassing me, apparently with the help of your friends, which prevents me from having a dialogue with you, as much as I would like to. I'd like it if you would stop. In the mean time, I'll be looking into what I can do, although by your brazeness, my guess is that my options are limited. ] 00:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

::Please just answer the questions. Why do you keep removing the Rubinstein material (which is properly sourced, carefully written, and clearly relevant given that he says many scholars have looked into the issue, even though most have dismissed it), and are you also editing as 207.195.254.167? ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:::No, I am not that user, and I don't know who they are, although I thanked them on their talk page. I can't keep responding to your questions when you refuse to respond to mine, though. I posted succinct explanations above several times, which you could read in under two minutes. I find your attitude amazing. Can you tell me why you have decided that I'm not entitled to your respect?

:::This is what I said above, which is that the statement is a fringe view, and thus not entitled to be on Misplaced Pages:

::::The very source you provide clearly states that it is a fringe view. As it states "One of the more serious distortions in the book is Regev's portrayal of Bernadotte as a supporter of the Nazis during World War II. Many scholars have explored this claim, but very few have come to the conclusion that it was anything more than perhaps a tendency. Most say there is no basis for such a claim whatsoever." Did you read that? "Distortion." "Very few" give it any credibility at all, and even then very little. "Most say there is no basis for such a claim whatsoever." This is the source you provided; how much clearer could it be that this is a fringe view? Fringe views are not to be included in Misplaced Pages. Your source says this is a fringe view. So far, your support for this statement is -1. ] 00:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::What that means is that some scholars believe Bernadotte had a "tendency" to be sympathetic toward or supportive of Nazi ideology, which is a very serious allegation, and some other scholars believe it was more than that. The fact that "many scholars," as he writes, have studied the allegation means it is worth mentioning. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 00:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem, as I explained above, is that you would be hardpressed to find /anyone/ involved in the Israel-Palestine debate -- who isn't a friend of Israel -- who has not been accused of anti-semitism by someone and one time or another. People are insinuating that I'm anti-semitic simply for my very moderate editing here left and right. It raises an extremely serious question: does that justify putting charges of anti-semitism in virtually every one of their Misplaced Pages bios? The way you have placed it, it says "Oh, ok, so this guy was shady when it comes to anti-semitism." That's what happens to anyone where you include that allegation. I think it creates an extremely serious question as to whether you are giving a fringe view undue weight.

Here, the one statement we have on the charges against this guy says in the clearest possible terms that it is a fringe view. And you kind of have to ask yourself: if this guy was a recognized anti-semite, would he have been chosen to head the negotiations? The incentive to level allegations against him, meanwhile, after he was assassinated, are obviously very high. Now I'm sure you'll want me to provide sources for all this stuff, but really, I have a source, and the source says the claim is bogus, and that most scholars say there is no basis for the claim "whatsoever". And that's the only source we have. If this is enough to insert a charge of anti-semitism in this guy's bio, I mean, really, for whom on the Palestinian side (which this guy's not even!) wouldn't you be able to justify it?

In any case, if it's included, it should be significantly toned down, so it doesn't simply scream "this guy's been called an anti-semite." I would at least edit:

:Despite these efforts, following his assassination, there has been some debate as to whether Bernadotte was sympathetic to Nazi ideology. Israeli journalist and historian Danny Rubinstein writes that many scholars have explored this allegation, however, and "very few believe that it was anything more than perhaps a tendency," while "ost say there is no basis for such a claim whatsoever".

But again, I say the support for including this kind of explosive and damaging statement, which simply serves to justify his assassination <i>even though there is no basis that this was a reason or relates to anything he ever did in any way,</i> is -1.] 01:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:Also, you moved the Israeli government's criticism from its own section down to the reasons for the assassination. Did you do this for a reason? I do not believe there is any evidence that this criticism was a reason, or should be there. The Israeli government has strongly condemned and appologized for the assassination. ] 01:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

::That he was a British agent and/or had Nazi sympathies is not a fringe view, but was a prevalent view at the time of his assassination, and indeed was an important part of the atmosphere that led to it. It was propaganda and may have been completely wrong, and we make clear that most scholars dismiss it, but to say it's tiny-minority and fringe, and that it has no place in the article, is to show no knowledge of the type of press stories that were appearing about him at the time. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 06:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

::Having looked through some sources, I think we should say more about it, not remove it, in order to place it in context, and to give an idea of the extent of it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 08:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:::Isarig, I think it's necessary for NPOV to continue the narrative, and not place the accusation completely separately. The idea that he's an anti-semite is facially contradictory to the statement that he made his name saving thousands of people, including Jews, from concentration camps. The sudden jump is unnatural; I think it's only fair, if we're going to have the accusation, to acknowledge the connection (particularly when the one follows right after the other). ] 18:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
::::You are welcome to your POV that "The idea that he's an anti-semite is facially contradictory to the statement that he made his name saving thousands of people, including Jews, from concentration camps. " - but plese recognize that it is a POV. Inserting editorial comments like "Despite this.." is contrary to WP policy. Please stop it. ] 19:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

:::::I believe you are incorrect. Let's say there was a small minority view that ] was actually anti-semitic. Would you simply say at the end of his biography, "Schindler has been accused of anti-semitism. Several articles in Israel have suggested he was sympathetic to the Nazis. The majority of scholars say this claim lacks merit."? Or would it be appropriate to say "Despite his efforts, Schindler has been accused by some of harboring anti-semitic sentiments. Several articles in Israel have suggested he actually harbored some sympathetic views toward the Nazis. The majority of scholars, however, say this claim lacks merit." Clearly, "Despite" and "however" here are necessary.

:::::From the article, we know that Bernadotte was well known for saving several thousand Jews from concentration camps; in fact many more than Schindler. This was stated in the immediately previous sentence. Whatever differences they may or may not have, the same reason applies. This is why I included that phrase. Otherwise the accusation seems very abrupt and out of place. ] 20:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
::::::yes, and it's ok for the article to mention the fact that he saved thousands (as it does). It i snot ok to push the POV that because of this, he could not be a Nazi symp, as you are doing with your editorializing comments. ] 20:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

::::::The guy saved thousands of Jews in the Holocast. But for Isarig this is not enough. He seems to believe that Bernadotte was still an antisemite that deserved to be killed. And that this his version should be the one on Wiki. And never mind if we all disagree with him. He will just revert us. ] 20:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
:::::::Please cease your persoanl atttacks immediately. This is your second and last warning. ] 20:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


The phrasing "unilateral Israeli Declaration of Independence" is inappropriate. The declaration was based on the UN resolution 181 (II) and was neither unilateral not multilateral. I suggest the word unilateral be dropped.
::::::::Isarig, why are you revert warring? Two people here disagree with you, and have stated our reasons why. Yet you revert for a third time without responding? I believe you know from your talk page that this is not allowed. Please respond, or do not revert others' explained edits. Also, your comments to me have not been civil. ] 20:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
] (]) 21:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::I might ask you the same question, seeing that you have already been reported for violating ] on this very page. I have expalined my edits to you, and responded to every one of your posts on the talk page. You are welocme to your POV regarding Bernadotte, but you may not editorialize in order to promote it. My responses to you have been very civil. ] 20:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


:It was unilateral, DoI's typically are (unless you count the backdoor chicanery with Truman who recognized Israel more or less instantaneously). Just search, one can quickly find several sources containing that expression. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/gend15288 for example. ] (]) 21:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
::::::::::You could not ask the same thing of me, because I have only reverted you once, which was an edit that you did not explain. Moreover, I explained my revert on the talk page, and then I explained my position again when you reverted me a second time, without reverting you again. If you have reported me for WP:3RR, your report is factually incorrect. But you also know from your talk page that even if I was edit warring, this would not excuse you for doing the same, and much more blatantly.] 21:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


== The issue as to who hired the Lehi assassins ==
:::::::::::Mackan, you've reverted around 23 times on just a couple of articles since December 11, despite having made only 160 edits to articles overall, and around 48 since December 11, so reverting is a very large percentage of what you do on Misplaced Pages. You might therefore consider toning down your claims about other people. That's not counting the anon IPs who turn up to revert to your versions, which may be you too. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 21:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


Declassified British document suggests that the Israeli state itself hired the killers.
::::::::::::SlimVirgin, he was revertwarring. Why are you defending him? And how could I have possibly toned that down? I was as polite as I could possibly be. And why are you spreading baseless accusations against me? If you looked at their pages and mine so carefully, you know very well they are not me. I was not even editing contentious articles when those pages were created, something I could tell simply from looking at them. You continue to violate[REDACTED] policy in attacks on me time and again.
British National Archives FO 371/75266 contains a 1949 letter about the then Belgium Consul-General, M. Jean Niewenhuys, detailing a "source, whom I consider to be reliable, has been in secret communication with a certain Czech employee" in the Consulate. According to the source, the assassins were indeed Lehi, but they were working for Israel, not Lehi. "It appeared that the Czech Consul-General had been approached by Mr Shiloah* of the Israeli Foreign Office … about a week before the murder, to arrange Czech visas and air passage for seven Jews in a Czech air line for the late afternoon flight to Prague … Shiloah, acting on behalf of the Israeli Government, was the organiser of the murder.
Source: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20221019-did-israel-not-lehi-murder-un-mediator-folke-bernadotte-in-1948/ ] (]) 23:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
: Interesting, but too conjectural for us and a better source is needed. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


== Pronunciation of Bernadotte ==
::::::::::::What I've been doing on Misplaced Pages is try to remove some of the more blatant POV from a few articles. These have included several individuals whose pages were dominated by partisan POV smears. Are you really not aware that this goes on on Misplaced Pages? Whatever. You're really priceless. You treat me like crap from the beginning, and then you continue to pursue me like I've done something offensive. Here and on Zionism, you know perfectly well that my suggestions were extremely moderate. I'm not even a partisan, but for some reason you've delcared war against me. I've responded to your 3RR report, which you violated policy by reporting, since you were heavily involved. Please stop attacking me, I'm not your enemy.


Should one say the final 'e', for example? ] (]) 18:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
== Progress ==
:No. --] (]) 11:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)--] (]) 11:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)


== Misinformation in Introductory Paragraph ==
The article is better now than a few days ago. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


The opening paragraph alone contains confusing wording and outright misinformation. The Theresienstadt ghetto ONLY held Jewish prisoners. The only available sources cited didn’t support this statement about tens of thousands of non Jewish prisoners being transferred from there. In fact, one of the sources referred to thousands of non-Jews and Jews being taken from Ravensbruck and other camps to other countries.
* The third most famous thing about Bernadotte (after the White Buses and getting shot) was his feud with ]. This is in fact the main source of the "Nazi sympathiser" charge (which was exceedingly fringe at the time of his assassination but became public in 1953). I have a lot of material on this and will try to summarise it. The passage about Rubinstein's article will make a good summary paragraph. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


If non-Jews were taken to Theresienstadt for their release, this should be made clear, as they had not prisoners there. I didn’t see evidence to support that, though.
* The passage "The group viewed ... future of Jerusalem." was more or less correct but the sources were not. I expanded it with better sources. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


I haven’t read the rest of the article, but the fact that the opening paragraph has completely incorrect information indicates that someone should more throughly vet this article.
* The reference to ] is dubious. The source given refers to ''Konrad'' Meinertzhagen which is probably a simple mistake but doesn't add confidence; plus, our article on Meinertzhagen says that he forged diary entries. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


It is probably for the best that it is locked, but those allowed to edit such articles need to be more vigilant, as it is unfortunately yet another Misplaced Pages piece that misrepresents the Holocaust in favor of those who downplay it, erasing the reality that an entire camp and ghetto was made exclusively for the Jews. Propaganda claimed “Hitler gave the Jews a city,” Theresienstadt. ] (]) 01:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
* The sentence "Some commentators in Israel continue to suggest that the assassination may have been justified in order to safeguard Israeli interests, which some Israelis felt were incompatible with Bernadotte's position." had three refs. A 1968 book of Katz can't be used to establish current opinion nor can a 1948 book of Bernadotte. The Rubinstein article mentions one person only and does not clearly assign him this opinion. So there is actually no source at the moment. We need one that states what the current range of opinion is. Meanwhile the sentence is gone. --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 11:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


:Now that I think about it, the phrasing also suggests that TENS OF THOUSANDS of non Jews were prisoner there, alongside *a few hundred* Jews. Which comes across as a more purposeful distortion of the Holocaust than I had thought. ] (]) 01:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
:Your additions are good, Zero. Thanks. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 20:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
:: Your comments would be more useful if you addressed the sources and/or provided sources for your positions. Everything we put into the article has to be based on published sources. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:05, 7 January 2025

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

  • You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
  • You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information
The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:
  1. Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
  2. Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

  • Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
  • Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Folke Bernadotte article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPalestine Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIsrael Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconScouting Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconFolke Bernadotte is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Misplaced Pages. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ScoutingWikipedia:WikiProject ScoutingTemplate:WikiProject ScoutingScouting
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article was the project's Portal biography of the month (September 2010).
WikiProject iconBiography: Politics and Government / Royalty and Nobility
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconSweden High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on September 17, 2011 and September 17, 2015.

Untitled

The article is as usual written by the sort of people Adorno described, for whom to use "I" is an impertinence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.79.50 (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Too much genealogy

There is far too much here on the count's descendants and his wife's family. Far too much to be relevant to his bio. I will be doing a major hatchet job on that section soon, unless anyone strongly objects and can show me how all that can be relevant here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree - hatchet away! Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I've transferred the genealogical text (without deleting it) to my sandbox User:Shakescene/Bernadotte, to see if I can format it as a table in the way I did with Lennart's genealogy. That doesn't mean the result wouldn't deserve some pruning, but it might be clearer what's what and who's who. By the way, I collapsed (and shrunk) the family table at Lennart Bernadotte#Ancestors, wives and children, combining it with the collapsed ahnentafel. It should make the stubby thinness of the other material more apparent. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Good work! SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I finished the change for Folke, but it would be useful for others to check it over for errors, omissions, misunderstandings, inconsistencies and redundancies, some of which are inevitable. See Folke Bernadotte#Ancestors, wife and descendants. The treatment of offspring at the equivalent articles at Wikiswedia is very brief, although that shouldn't be the limiting factor here. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Very good work. SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

We have still not landed anywhere near normalcy in this regard. Now, his sons have a special hidden info box, where again, all kinds of irrelevant info has been added about grandchildren etc. Names are bolded all over as if these people's names are more important than Bernadotte's biographical accomplishments. His extramarital daughter is not in the box, so now she is visible as a child of his but the others aren't visible unless a box is specially opened. Very screwy if you ask me. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done as well as I had time for right now. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Bernadotte talking to Australian PoW's.

Pardon my ignorance, but in relation to the picture of Bernadotte talking to Australian PoW's... Australia had no army personnel in Europe during WWII - but rather RAAF personnel; the slouch hats hint at these men being in the army. Yeah, here are tildes, showing the post is my own 58.164.23.227 (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You might be right, but can you just provide with a reliable sourse, just to be on a safe side.-- Jim Fitzgerald 16:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Australian POWs were taken to Germany from North Africa and other places. There is even a book about it. Zero 07:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Rescue in late states

Perhaps the Rescuing POW's in the late stages of WW II could be called a rescue ??? Also, the article doesn't make it clear its a late stages of the war thing.. He didn't do ANY rescues in 1942 or 1943... It doesn't say that his involvement in negotiating surrender was ended by the end of the war, the Allies military invasion of Berlin..

It all seems weasily at present, as if to exagerate his value.. "Look, its a man who can negotiate with the Nazi's ... " But only when the nazis were looking at how to die gracefully.


101.174.81.128 (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

From the Britannica Reference Suite 2010 article on Folke Bernadotte

"Bernadotte (af Wisborg), Folke, Greve (count)." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2010:

"Appointed mediator in Palestine by the UN Security Council on May 20, 1948, Bernadotte obtained the grudging acceptance by the Arab states and Israel of a UN cease-fire order, effective June 11. He soon made enemies by his proposal that Arab refugees be allowed to return to their homes in what had become the State of Israel. After a number of threats against his life, he and André-Pierre Serot, a French air force colonel and UN observer, were murdered by members of the Jewish extremist Stern Gang. Bernadotte's efforts laid the foundation for both the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization, which monitors cease-fires and assists peacekeeping operations in the region, and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, which was created to provide relief services for Palestinians who lost their homes and means of livelihood following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948."


(Just in case anyone's interested:

"Stern Gang." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2010:

also called Stern Group , or Lehi , formally Loḥamei Ḥerut Yisraʾel (Hebrew: “Fighters for the Freedom of Israel”)

Zionist extremist organization in Palestine, founded in 1940 by Avraham Stern (1907–42) after a split in the right-wing underground movement, Irgun Zvai Leumi)

    ←   ZScarpia   16:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

maybe you could help me re the saving of my mother from aushwitz

Hi

My name is michael roth and my late step mother told me of the way she was saved during from exterminatiion in aushwitz before the end of the war

my understanbding is that Himmler did a deal with Count Folke Bernadotte where a thousnad jewsih lives were traded for 1000 swedish trucks

My step mother told me one day she was called to roll call and she was loaded into a convoy which was straffed either bty the american or british airforces , many of the prisoners were killed in ths raid but she arrived in denmark and was transported to sweden

Maybe you can direct me to some hsitorical records of this event

if you cn assist i would be most appreciative

my email address is michael.roth@bigpond.com

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.157.112 (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Extended family charts

Biographical articles about notable persons are supposed to be about the person himself. They are not about his ancestors or his wife's ancestors. I deleted the unsourced material that was taking up an undue amount of space in this article. Even it was sourced, it would not be appropriate here.--Geewhiz (talk) 12:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Gilabrand/Geewhiz: While you were writing this I was writing to you. I have seen to it that the excessive genealogy once in this article (and many others) has been edited and reduced considerably. So I fully agree with your edit summary comment. But isn't it customary to mention the children of a person with a WP biography? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Children and maybe a famous relative or two is fine. It was just this huge referenceless section that caught my eye. Please feel free to add whatever material you feel is relevant and not excessive. Best--Geewhiz (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 Done. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

notes on two sources

"The Secret War on the Jews", by Aarons and Loftus is a standard sort of conspiracy tract. Its main "revelation" is that the British government has a secret department which keeps tabs on every Jew in the world. Almost every factual claim it makes about Bernadotte is wrong. Believe it at your peril. The book "Nazi millionaires" claims to have new evidence on Bernadotte but it is only that he had a personal relationship with the Walter Schellenberg. This is old news, read about it already at White Buses. Without Schellenberg's support, the White Buses would not have happened and thousands would have died. Later Schellenberg tried to negotiate a German surrender using Bernadotte as a reluctant messenger (this should be in the article, though with a proper source). Calling this "Nazi collaboration" on Bernadotte's part is somewhat disgusting. Neither book comes close to satisfying WP:RS. Zero 11:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Folke Bernadotte. 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.

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. —Talk to my owner:Online 00:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Folke Bernadotte. 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) 09:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Avraham Steinberg

The last of Bernadotte's assassins, Avraham Steinberg (nicknamed 'Gingi') died this month aged 97. Zero 08:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Folke Bernadotte. 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) 21:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Folke Bernadotte. 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) 08:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Folke Bernadotte. 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) 04:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

There is an error in the Related Articles section. "Levi" should be "Lehi". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:199:3133:2833:6642:2104:E4D5 (talk) 10:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't find it. Zero 11:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I should have pointed that I see the "Levi" error in the mobile version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:199:3133:2833:6642:2104:E4D5 (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The "Levi" error seems to originate from https://m.wikidata.org/Q2904138. I have just fixed it there. I don't see the change reflected in this page, yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:199:3133:2833:6642:2104:E4D5 (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Now it is correct, "Lehi". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:199:3133:2833:6642:2104:E4D5 (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Correction to Bernadotte travel and negotiation on release of French women, 1945

I do not have enough edits to qualify to make corrections for this article. Nevertheless, I wish to point one problem (completely unrelated to the Arab-Israeli issue) that needs correction.

Bernadotte’s write-up contains this paragraph:

“Bernadotte recounted the White Buses mission in his book The End. My Humanitarian Negotiations in Germany in 1945 and Their Political Consequences, published on June 15, 1945 in Swedish. In the book, Bernadotte recounts his negotiations with Himmler and others, and his experience at the Ravensbrück concentration camp.”

The first problem is the book title. The one given is correct-- but only for the original Swedish title translated into English. When it was published in English and other languages the title was changed and is cited further down as:

Bernadotte, Folke (1945). The Curtain Falls. Translated by Count Eric Lewenhaupt. New York: A. A. Knopf. LCCN 45008956. (Swedish title: Slutet.)

Here’s the problem: If you search for a copy of “The End: My Negotiations et al” you cannot find it except in the Library of Congress. You can’t buy it anywhere; no library can lend you a copy. It more or less doesn’t exist. That’s because the tile was changed to the second version, which are variations based on “The Curtain Falls.” The write-up needs to make clear that “The End” is “The Curtain Falls.” It does not currently do this in at least two places. This must be fixed and made clear. Also, the full title of the book needs to be given: It is “The Curtain Falls: The Last Days of the Third Reich.” You can find it many places, such as Amazon, https://www.amazon.com/Curtain-Falls-Last-Third-Reich-ebook/dp/B01BXA10OK/ref=sr_1_6?dchild=1&keywords=the+curtain+falls&qid=1596123477&s=books&sr=1-6

Here is the second problem: The Misplaced Pages write-up quoted above says “...and his experience at the Ravensbrück concentration camp.”

In fact, the book does NOT mention “his experience” at Ravensbruck; there is no indication anywhere in this book that he ever went near the place.

The first of only two references says this : “He also showed genuine interest in my proposal that the Swedish Red Cross be allowed to remove all French women interned at the Ravensbruck concentration camp. He said that he not only assented to this, but that he also wished us to remove the women of all nationalities, as the camp in question was shortly to be evacuated. I promised him that I would immediately give our detachment orders to this effect.”

The second reference on the very next page says: “I departed for Friedrichsruh immediately after breakfast. After a short visit to our headquarters, where I made arrangements for the removal of the women interned at Ravensbruck, I started for Denmark to be precise, for the small town of Padborg, just north of the Danish-German frontier. There I had the opportunity of inspecting the excellent arrangements made by the Danish Red Cross and the Danish authorities for the reception and quartering of prisoners before they were removed to other places in Denmark.”

It very clearly says he “made arrangements for” the transfer, and that he immediately left to go not to Ravensbruck but to Padborg.

There is no other reference to Ravensbruck. A further problem is the date of this conversation, which appears to be April 21 or April 22, 1945. In fact, the first evacuation of French women from Ravensbruck occurred on April 8, and is amply documented in many sources, including the well-documented fact they were greeted at Gare de Lyon by Gen. de Gaulle, on April 22 (and it took the women 16 days to get there). Other women -- the now famous “Lilacs,” Polish Catholics -- were soon evacuated, before August 22. Then, approximately 20,000 to 25,000 other women were sent on a death march across Germany (most did not survive). The Russians arrived at and occupied Ravensbruck on April 30, 1945, when only about 4,000 were left inside.

Bill Swanson1946 (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC) Bill Swanson

Thank you for your comments. Regarding the book, we permit non-English sources and there is no rule again citing the original Swedish edition. On the other hand, English sources of equal reliability are preferred, so the best outcome will be to name and cite the English edition. I believe I have electronic access and I'll work on this. (As an aside, you are incorrect that the original title was used only in Swedish. I located German, Finnish, Danish, Italian, French, Spanish and Esperanto editions using the original title in translation.) Zero 03:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

UN mediator

The phrasing "unilateral Israeli Declaration of Independence" is inappropriate. The declaration was based on the UN resolution 181 (II) and was neither unilateral not multilateral. I suggest the word unilateral be dropped. Jony (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

It was unilateral, DoI's typically are (unless you count the backdoor chicanery with Truman who recognized Israel more or less instantaneously). Just search, one can quickly find several sources containing that expression. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7312/gend15288 for example. Selfstudier (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The issue as to who hired the Lehi assassins

Declassified British document suggests that the Israeli state itself hired the killers. British National Archives FO 371/75266 contains a 1949 letter about the then Belgium Consul-General, M. Jean Niewenhuys, detailing a "source, whom I consider to be reliable, has been in secret communication with a certain Czech employee" in the Consulate. According to the source, the assassins were indeed Lehi, but they were working for Israel, not Lehi. "It appeared that the Czech Consul-General had been approached by Mr Shiloah* of the Israeli Foreign Office … about a week before the murder, to arrange Czech visas and air passage for seven Jews in a Czech air line for the late afternoon flight to Prague … Shiloah, acting on behalf of the Israeli Government, was the organiser of the murder. Source: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20221019-did-israel-not-lehi-murder-un-mediator-folke-bernadotte-in-1948/ 185.236.184.175 (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, but too conjectural for us and a better source is needed. Zero 01:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Bernadotte

Should one say the final 'e', for example? 142.205.202.71 (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

No. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)--SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Misinformation in Introductory Paragraph

The opening paragraph alone contains confusing wording and outright misinformation. The Theresienstadt ghetto ONLY held Jewish prisoners. The only available sources cited didn’t support this statement about tens of thousands of non Jewish prisoners being transferred from there. In fact, one of the sources referred to thousands of non-Jews and Jews being taken from Ravensbruck and other camps to other countries.

If non-Jews were taken to Theresienstadt for their release, this should be made clear, as they had not prisoners there. I didn’t see evidence to support that, though.

I haven’t read the rest of the article, but the fact that the opening paragraph has completely incorrect information indicates that someone should more throughly vet this article.

It is probably for the best that it is locked, but those allowed to edit such articles need to be more vigilant, as it is unfortunately yet another Misplaced Pages piece that misrepresents the Holocaust in favor of those who downplay it, erasing the reality that an entire camp and ghetto was made exclusively for the Jews. Propaganda claimed “Hitler gave the Jews a city,” Theresienstadt. Elleoneiram (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, the phrasing also suggests that TENS OF THOUSANDS of non Jews were prisoner there, alongside *a few hundred* Jews. Which comes across as a more purposeful distortion of the Holocaust than I had thought. Elleoneiram (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Your comments would be more useful if you addressed the sources and/or provided sources for your positions. Everything we put into the article has to be based on published sources. Zero 03:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Folke Bernadotte: Difference between revisions Add topic