Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp/Archive 2

Soviets or Russians
Calling all soviet citizens 'Russians' is very simplistic and quite offensive to the victims who were not russian but still soviet citizens. Could someone please correct this oversight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.162.197 (talk) 13:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Evacuation and liberation
I removed a line from the Evacuation and liberation section about comments made by Barack Obama this weekend. He apparently claimed a great-uncle was part of the liberation force of this camp, when instead his relative was in the group which liberated Buchenwald. Without commenting on the notability of such a statement in the policital primary season, or the 2008 elections overall, I don't see how such claims are notable in an article about Auschwitz itself. His campaign has retracted the statement, so as I see it, no one is publicly challenging the current historical record. Please understand, this is not an attempt to "censor" any information. It's simply to keep the focus of this article where it belongs. --InkSplotch (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It is back again. I know that Auschwitz is a serious business but for hilarity it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.217.41 (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the mention of Barack Obama's erroneous statement regarding his ancestors liberating Auschwitz is included in the article only in an effort to discredit him as a politician and is in fact irrevelant to the history of the concentration camp. Obama has since retracted his earlier statement and clarified that the camp his ancestor helped liberate was Buchenwald and not Auschwitz, which you can read about here: http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2740383620080527?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true


 * Wikipedia is not for "hilarity". And your comment, "The fact that it was liberated by Russians is precisely why Obama's claim is noteworthy. It follows a long line of Obama's gaffes during his campaign in the "57 states." --Neil Brown (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)" further illustrates your motivation for adding this information. This is already mentioned in the Obama presidential campaign article. Feel free to expand on it there. This is not the proper place. I am removing it. KnightLago (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Either way this is disinformation, or a slur against Obama. It has absolutely no place here. WilliamH (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: the articles section on Evacuation and Liberation - the statement that the gas chamber was blown up to coverup a crime from the Russians is followed closely by the mention of leaving behind a substantial number of witnesses for the Russians to "liberate". Any logic, documentation, "reliable" citation,... on this piece of information, it sounds really weak - almost pathetic ( not that I mind, but a citation on the exploding gas chambers, motives, etc would be nice ). 159.105.80.141 (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

location
hello may i suggest to replace text "Located in German-occupied southern Poland" with "Located in Germany after annection of former Polish territories" best —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discourseur (talk • contribs) 12:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's best how it currently stands. Located in Germany after annection of former Polish territories implies that Poland is still part of Germany, whereas Located in German-occupied southern Poland doesn't. True, it is unlikely for such thing to be misconstrued, but it's best to keep the prose as unimplicit as possible. Thanks for bringing this forward anyway. WilliamH (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

hi this territories where in poland just for few years. it is nothing special that for next few years they were in germany. be aware that poland lost after war half of its territory - to soviets. historical perspective of that part of europe is that without moving, you were able or rather you had to change your nationality several times. auschwitz was at that time in germany, under german governance, not in poland or polish occupied soil. there is also other problem. part of poland was occupied thats true, but part was annected to germany. these were two very different things. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Government and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichsgau and auschwitz as formerly german territory (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silesia and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Silesia) was annected (directly to germany, it was not even reichsgau) not occupied. anyway next paragraph you have that it was "incorporated" - it is contradiction. please change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discourseur (talk • contribs) 09:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ok. i did it. i hope no one will reverse it due to above arguments. --Discourseur (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Which reliable source do you have to back your argument up? Note that in his essay "Auschwitz and the Final Solution" in the "Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp" book, renowned Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg refers to the territory you are citing (bearing in mind this includes Upper Silesia) as "the central part of occupied Poland, known as the General Government" (page 84). The precedent should be where the camp actually is. WilliamH (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * did he use a map to prove that? check given links - there are some plans of borders. and "central part of general government" was 150km away from auschwitz. apart from facts, hilberg as austrian is definitely not reliable source.--Discourseur (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My mistake - I forgot that the annexed territories and General Government are seperate. In your previous message you write "part was annected to germany". The problem is that the area in question no longer isn't. It is perfectly legitimate to comment on how the camp was indeed in annexed territories (which is was already done in the second paragraph until you changed it for no apparent reason), but Located in Germany after annection of former Polish territories is ungainly and implicitly inaccurate. It inadvertantly suggests that the territory in question (and thus the camp) is still annexed to Germany because it doesn't comment on the status quo, which is completely unacceptable. WilliamH (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * well there are so many contradictions in your post. the status quo of that territories was as described. so what do you want to comment. if you want to describe current territorial status of the "museum of auschwit", just do it. be aware that since 1945 it is no longer concentration camp. however from perspective of anglosaxoncentric attitude there may be some still working appliances. just check it personally. have you ever been there? and more importan contradiction if they are not annexed they are not occupied as well--77.115.21.215 (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * as i deduce from your contributions, as a longstanding inhabitant of germany, you have some special interest (personal?)in claiming that auschwitz wasn't in germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discourseur (talk • contribs) 15:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Terminology is not inherent to location. The site was indeed in territory annexed by the Nazis. This is not disputed and its historical context is explained, but since these territories are now neither annexations of Germany nor occupied by the SS, prose that implicitly suggests that the annexed territories are still part of Germany is completely abstract. WilliamH (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * ok i agree that such a suggestion is not good idea. however i do not get how this text suggests that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discourseur (talk • contribs) 19:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read cautiously Hague IV SECTION III MILITARY AUTHORITY OVER THE TERRITORY OF THE HOSTILE STATE (Art. 42. and later)(Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907). Any territorial changes in occupied territory are invalid from the beginning. It is clear solution of international law ( parties of these conventions were in 1939 and are today both Germany and Poland).

Best regards for all participians in discussion

Andros64 (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Andros64 (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * but district kattowitz was under civilian administration, general gouvernment was occupied and kept under ss administration.--Discourseur (talk) 08:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I repeat - Any territorial changes in occupied territory are invalid from the beginning. It is clear solution of international law ( parties of these conventions were in 1939 and are today both Germany and Poland). If German-Nazi authorities turn part of occupied Poland under civil administration it was just another war crime ( in contrary to legal international obligations of Germany) - that's all.


 * obviously it was war crime. but facts are not law. law does not allow killing but it doesn't mean that there are no murders.--&#39;&#39;discourseur&#39;&#39; (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * the other fact is that territories of poland annexed by soviet union have never returned. according to your proposition should they be treated as polish??? it is issue of international politics not law that auschwitz is now in poland.--discourseur 10:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And according to a ream of sources (as opposed to your synthesis), it always was:


 * Muzeum Auschwitz-Birkenau w Oświęcimiu EN Franciszek Piper, chair of the Historical Department at the Auschwitz State Museum, "Auschwitz was carrying out the guidelines of the German Third Reich’s policy in occupied Poland."


 * Auschwitz maps USHMM: "Auschwitz played a central role in the "Final Solution," the Nazi plan to murder the Jews of Europe. The Nazis deported Jews from nearly every European country to the Auschwitz II (Birkenau) killing center in occupied Poland."


 * Ibid, USHMM: "The Nazis established six killing centers in occupied Poland."


 * "Republic of Poland, Ministry of Foreign Affairs". The Mass Extermination of Jews in German Occupied Poland. Hutchinson & Co., 1942.


 * 1939 - 1945 timeline, Deportations to Auschwitz USHMM: "Another transport leaves Westerbork the next day. The two trains will arrive at the Auschwitz camp in German-occupied Poland two days later."


 * United States Polish Embassy: "In August 1943, Bill was deported from Westerbork to the Auschwitz camp in German-occupied Poland.


 * Teaching about the Holocaust USHMM: "Levi was deported from Turin, Italy, to the Auschwitz camp in German-occupied Poland in 1943."


 * That's how sources refer to it = that's how we shall refer to it. WilliamH (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * according to many other sources auschwitz was polish not german camp. quantity does not mean reliability.--discourseur 13:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the camp authorities have made several attempts to make it clear that the camp was operated and built by Germans, not Poles, such as here, in, (surprise surprise) "...other parts of Poland...occupied by the Germans...", but this is not intrinsic to the matter at hand and extraneous to this discussion. WilliamH (talk) 13:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * it is not suprise because polish authorities didn't know that fact. it is new issue, but it doesn't mean false in the same way as few years ago "polish camp" was a new issue still not resolved by many sources.--77.114.25.119 (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * i do not know if it makes sense because william forcing consequently one argument do not want to see whole list of arguments given, i would like to add another one. after annexation by germany auschwitz was never given back to poland. this territory was added to poland with other parts of silesia formely not belonging to poland with decision of roosevelt and stalin in Yalta Conference - as a sphere of soviet influence.--discourseur 15:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Andros64 (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oświęcim was after the partitions of Poland part of territory of Austria, and later Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. It regained to Poland after treaty of Saint-Germain between Entente and Austria. No connection with the question above.


 * yes as described more above (you did not read discussion). but what situation before war has to do with political decisions afterwards? pleas answer this and do not change theme.--discourseur 15:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Best regards: Andros64 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In no case it is the subject of post WW II decisions - for reason described above.


 * "after annexation by germany auschwitz was never given back to poland." Incorrect. WilliamH (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * where is it described specifically? and why post-war decisions are irrelevant? they are still in force.--discourseur 16:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Andros64 (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * simply- Oświęcim was never legally territory of Germany (in any state forms from 1871 till 1945) and in consequence it was never the question of post WW II regulations.


 * again i put argument that law was not respected at that time due to political decisions. auschwitz was not legally in germany, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't due to Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. and it was added after the war to poland due to yalta conference - not any law or return. why it was added to poland read citation from stalin. so what international law has to do with presence of auschwitz within poland after the war? --discourseur 16:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You can put forward whatever argument you like, but since it is your own thought/synthesis/understanding (something which is not allowed) as opposed to what other sources say, it's pretty much inconsequential. WilliamH (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * but it is argument in opposite to declaration of loyalty to mass-culture opinion.--discourseur 16:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Andros64 (talk) 16:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Answering your question above- Oświęcim never till 1919 ceased to be part of Republic of Poland and in 1945 it was simply regained from war occupation of Nazi-Germany ( exactly just like Alsace and Lorraine in France ( Strasbourg, Belfort a s.o), apart from their unlegal annexation to Nazi-Germany in 1940)


 * thanks andros for argumenting. but historical facts go other way: auschwitz ceased to be the part of poland in 1939 due to molotov-ribbentrop pact. anyway it is not answer to question about application of international law to that case you put forward. so i ask it the other way: according to what law both breslau and auschwitz were added to poland after the war?--discourseur 16:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

first line of opposing it in support uses plethora of citations, however none of them is ground in any analysis, consisting only of unreflexive assumptions. standard of academic citation urges for citations of works analysing, making research etc. upon given issue, not just giving statements.
 * to summarize cons against "annexation" issue:

second line of opposition is using international law, however failed to show its application in that case, especially according to hague convention. it is so because, not only during 2ndww but long before (anexation of austria and most of czechoslovakia) and also afterwards, that law was not respected, and not only by nazis.

arguments for "annexation" issue show:

first, that auschwitz was during 2ndww within administrative borders of germany - district katowice, province upper silesia.

second, that historical changes to the territorial situation of auschwitz were occuring several times. it was in poland, bohemia, austria, germany - always by conquest.

third, that auschwitz became part of germany during 2ndww due to molotov-ribbentrop pact.

fourth, that aushwitz became part of poland after the war due to yalta conference decisions, without application of any international law - in the same way as breslau.

fifth, after the war the camp was destroyed and transformed into museum. so even sayin that it is nowadays within borders of poland mises the fact that it is no longer concentration camp but museum of auschwitz.

there were many concentration camps in occupied part of poland but it is not a case of auschwitz. moreover, contemporary borders of both germany and poland are not an outcome of application of any international law but an effect of political bargains between stalin and his allies - first hitler, later roosevelt.

henceforth, writing that auschwitz "was located in east Germany after annexation of territories formerly belonging to Poland" is honest way to describe its situation. --discourseur 09:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)--


 * I have reverted the "Located in east Germany" prose because it is a) not how independent sources refer to the site, and b) its reasoning is entirely original argument and synthesis, which is completely unacceptable. It is abstract, illogical, and confusing to tell the reader that the site's precedent location is in a void; in a territory that no longer exists. We must explain where the camp is first, then explain its historical and contextual location. WilliamH (talk) 12:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * following argument of william above i changed paragraph to show contemporary situation of the camp. german-occupied poland still reffered to past situation not expressing present one. --discourseur 21:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * btw. i took a look at hague convention and... there is nothing about annexing territories. ie. hague convention is not applicable to acts of annexation of occupied territories. --discourseur 23:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Article Needs Cleanup
I've added the WP:CLEAN tag due to the excessive images and large image captions. I have also noticed that the article also has an excessive amount of links, associated names, excessive time line. Please work to reduce the amount of each to make it easier to read. Also, please consider working on condensing some of the sections for easier readability. Brothejr (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am truly suprised reading looooong second sentence about hague convention. can somebody move it elsewere or just delete? it is redundant to a content of next paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.80.103 (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article needs cleanup, particularly the picture captions. If I may say so, the tone is sometimes inappropriate for what is meant to be an encyclopedia article and not a memorial page: for example, a phrase like "so-called 'death gate'" seems wrong to me, as I have never heard the main entrance to Birkenau being called the "death gate".  Even if it is called that by some people, "so-called" is an expression deprecated by WP.  Elsewhere, the picture of the rose on the stop sign seems to me to be actually irrelevant, since it tells us nothing about the camp other than people visit it and leave flowers there, and the caption is just silly; "barb wire" is a schlocky film starring Pamela Anderson, the correct phrase being "barbed wire"'; the photos of the gas chamber and crematorium in camp I should be recaptioned as such, not as photos of the memorials to same (the bunches of flowers are not the point of the pictures, and from my own visit to Auschwitz I recall that we were asked not to take pictures of the interior of the gas chamber and crematorium, so I question the appropriateness of these pictures); and "commandant and Obersturmbannführer" is wrong, since Obersturmbannführer was Höß's SS rank, not his job title.


 * Later on, in the excellent aerial photo of Birkenau the holes used to introduce the cyanide into the gas chambers are not visible to me, at any rate. Most of the rest of the captions seem to me OK.  I don't want to offend whoever wrote the picture captions because I am sure that they feel as strongly as I do that this subject needs to be represented.  But I think that a purely factual tone is more appropriate.  An article on a subject this terrible does not need (as it were) invisible violins playing in the background. I will edit the captions accordingly.  If anyone disapproves of my edits, feel free to discuss them and we can redraft them. Lexo (talk) 15:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have done the edit. Incidentally, there is one more caption that I think is problematic, which is the very first one.  Right now it says "Entrance to" Auschwitz II, but as the photographer indicates, it was actually taken from inside the camp, at the loading ramp.  Technically speaking, that makes it a photograph of the exit from Auschwitz II, but of course very few people exited the camp via this gate.  I am going to replace it with "The main gate of Auschwitz II in 2006."  If anybody objects, feel free to revert.  I just don't want some nitpicking Holocaust denier having the slightest thing to complain about in this article. Lexo (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Jack Tramiel
Jack Tramiel founded Commodore Computers. This should be noted by his name, rather than just saying 'businessman'.

72.177.34.13 (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleted photo
I have deleted this photo from the article page because the photo lacks any caption. Can't tell what it's a photo of (Auschwitz I? Birkenau?). Maybe anyone who can tell could add a caption and add it back to the article. Here's the photo. Vidor (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a photo of Auschwitz I, the Stammlager. WilliamH (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Okey dokey. Vidor (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Formatting
I wonder if this whole article doesn't need to be rewritten. Would it be better to write a more chronological article, tracing the development of Auschwitz, rather than structuring the meat of the article by talking about each sub-camp in turn? Vidor (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Following up on the above, I am now going to start rewriting the article to present the evolution of the camp in chronological order, using as my source Auschwitz: 1270 to the Present. I think I will not be adding much text, but rather will organize it differently. Vidor (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a major article; couldn't you at least discuss this before rewriting it? I appreciate you've posted this on the talk page, but you wrote it as a question, implying you'd like responses. Ironho<b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 08:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A major article with a tag on the top saying it needs to be cleaned up. In any case I don't think the article needs as many changes as I thought on first looking. I've made a few edits indicating the chronology better.  Am thinking of adding a section on the medical "experiments" by Mengele and others.  And of course going through and trying to eliminate factoids that are repeated in different parts of the article. Vidor (talk) 00:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

schindler
i do not know why there is this hollywood driven annotation about schindler. he did not have direct connections to auschwitz, he was working in cracow. there were many other persons, who saved the lives of much more jews eg Irena Sendler. i propose removing this. --discourseur 07:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, more or less
Created a section with all the information about medical experiments; included more detail about the mechanics of gassing; added more information about the timeline of Auschwitz's evolution into a death camp, including a section on the Hungarian Action. Vidor (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Execution yard?
The picture described as being of the execution yard clearly is the gallows erected after liberation to hang Hoss, the commandant of the camp.

The execution yard itself is a grey wall beside block 11. Bulletholes are clearly visibile where prisoners were executed. The wall is also covered in pebbles and flowers. I would upload a picture of this myself having recently been to visit the museum (Feb 08) but the page is semi-protected.

Dutch courage1990 (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose you could call it an execution yard, but yes that is somewhat vague when one regards the wall between Block 10 & 11. Disambiguated. <font face="Century Schoolbook">WilliamH (talk) 10:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a picture of it, but I don't know how to upload it. Also, it's not the original it's a reconstruction. It's what I heard on the tour, I need to find a source that I can cite.RWgirl (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC) http://www.scrapbookpages.com/auschwitzscrapbook/tour/Auschwitz1/Auschwitz05.html http://www.johndclare.net/Nazi_Germany3_Auschwitz.htm Do either count as a credible source? I just didn't want to go about editing if it wasn't. I'm also not sure how to cite a source in the wiki text.RWgirl (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Soviet POWs
It's more complicated than "Auschwitz I (...) was the site of the deaths of roughly 70,000 people, mostly Poles and Soviet prisoners of war." A large part of them died while at Treblinka back when it was an SS POW camp (which is not even mentioned). Look it up. --Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 09:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Birkenau revolt
"He escaped on the night of April 26–April 27, 1943 but his plan wasn`t accepted by Home Army and Allies don`t believed of his report about holocaust."

Was this written by someone retarded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.151.204.210 (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversies
In the section "Other controversies" there is one - that is not really a controverse. Since the middle of the 1990s the International Auschwitz Council tok the decision, that movies should not be alowed to be filmed inside the former camp. Only the documentaries are accepted. And those rules are for each filmmaker, Spielberg too. Wulfstan (talk) 09:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?
"Hearn Family entire mountain jew civilisation, the only living survivor is the decendent Mitch Hearn" EdX20 (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the "Auschwitz plans" discovered in Berlin
The sentence in the introduction

In November, 2008, blueprints were discovered in a Berlin apartment that suggest a major expansion of the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp was planned.

is problematic. I suggest that someone change it and update it in light particularly of the comments of Auschwitz expert Robert-Jan van Pelt. Van Pelt, an internationally recognized expert on the field (he served as an expert witness in the Irving trial), holds that there is nothing new in these documents, and moreover that, if authentic, they are not plans for building an extermination camp. According to Ha'aretz:

Van Pelt, an architectural historian, said that copies of the plans of the stages of the camp's construction were also in the archive of the Polish National Museum at Auschwitz and in an archive in Moscow. He said that the source of the new copies was unclear since, according to Bild, the plans were found in an apartment in Berlin, whereas copies that were in the SS offices in Berlin were destroyed by Allied bombing in 1944. Van Pelt said he also doubted the authenticity of the signature of the SS chief, Heinrich Himmler, since such a high-ranking officer would not have signed such plans, and none of the copies he had ever seen bore such a signature.

Van Pelt also said the words "gas chamber" on one of the drawings meant a room in which disinfection of clothing was done by means of gas, and that the sketch is not of an extermination camp established in 1942, but rather of earlier plans for a huge concentration camp in which a force of 130,000 slave laborers was intended to work.

Van Pelt suggested the plans might be fakes, motivated by the lucrative market in Nazi memorabilia and documents.

Doktordrible (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Rudolf Höß
The last item in the chronology of the camp is not only in the wrong sequence, but it says that Rudolf Höß was executed in 1947. Almost everybody knows he died at Spandau 40 years later. Frank
 * Did you look at the Rudolf Höß article? He's not the same person as Rudolf Heß. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict: Rudolf Höß and Rudolf Hess are two different people - note that the Auschwitz commandant's execution was photographed. WilliamH (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My mistake, the names looks so much alike, I am probably not the first one to get mixed up. Anyway, thanks a lot for pointing it out. Frank —Preceding unsigned comment added by François Pichette (talk • contribs) 04:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Simple correction needed
I'm not familiar with how to properly request this, but the current text reads,

"The three main camps were Aushwitz I, III, and III."

And should read,

"The three main camps were Auschwitz I, II, and III."

Auschwitz is misspelled and III should read II.

Thank you.

Mwgarrison (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha! Done, thanks. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 07:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sonderkommando photo
I suggest that this photo be removed from this article, since its inclusion here doesn't add any useful information about the camp itself (and there are arguably too many pictures in this article). What's more, it's generally considered bad form to be photographed smiling in a place like Auschwitz. I have no issue with leaving this picture in the other two articles that it currently appears in. – Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  16:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. WilliamH (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Photo should be removed.--Jacurek (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Another Simple Correction
The section on Auschwitz II (Birkenau) references "The first gas chamber at Birkenau was "The Little Red House"". Then, the next sentence is "A second brick cottage, "The Little Red House", ..." I believe the second gas chamber was called "The Little White House" and the article needs to be updated to reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illepic (talk • contribs) 12:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Minor correction: crematoria vs crematorium
I see "Crematoria II", etc. Is the plural intended here, or is the singular form appropriate?--Jrm2007 (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Another minor thought: Could some reword "purported 'medical experiments'"? I know the intended meaning, but Holocaust deniers might interpret it to mean the experiments were only alleged to have happened, and never done. Maybe something as simple as "purported 'medical' experments", so the emphasis is on the medical aspect being purported by the Nazis, and the act of experimenting not in question.

Death toll - relevant estimates differ from 800,000 to five million?
"According to Harmon and Drobnicki,[1] relevant estimates range from 800,000 to five million people" ??

I've written a large article in the German Wikipedia about the death toll (Opferzahlen) in Auschwitz concentration camps. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opferzahlen_der_Konzentrationslager_Auschwitz

There is no doubt about the 1,1-1,5 Million researched by Franciszek Piper. I wonder why this isn't stated clear here. The work of Piper matches the work of Wolfgang Benz: Dimension of the Holocaust (Dimension des Völkermordes), especially concerning the hungarian jews, which are the main part in Auschwitz.

Harmon and Drobnicki e.g. cite Eugen Kogon "Der SS Staat" (4 Million victims assigned to Auschwitz) written 1946. Kogon don't know anything about the "Einsatzgruppen" and assigned all victims in the east areas to Auschwitz witch is completely wrong. This is often taken by holocaust deniers like Germar Rudolf to argute that number of victims differ a lot.Thomas Maierhofer (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Pilecki ausch f.jpg
The image File:Pilecki ausch f.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:RudolfVrba2.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --03:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Overall view
Some parts of this article have good key points regarding the camps I-IV, however other bits are fragmented, other bits are just strings badly connected facts, some bits are poorly written in conversational tones and other parts are not contextual, so just hang (like informational islands).

For instance, there is no logical order to the article. There is a chronology but it is just dropped in as a section, the chronology should in the way the article is written. From start to finish, with all key points, placed within their correct precedence.

Furthermore, there is no information actually dealing with how and why the Nazis chose this place! For instance, the only mention to this is the confusing entry: Auschwitz I was the original camp, and it served as the administrative center for the whole complex. It was founded on May 20, 1940, on the basis of an old Polish brick army barracks (originally built by the Austro-Hungarian Empire).

What the deuce does [founded] on the basis of an old Polish brick army barracks actually mean? In plain English I would assume it should say that the occupying German forces 'took over' former Polish Brick army Barracks. Rather than as it means now, following a concept left by the Poles!

Just as additional information, when I visited the site in 2002, the reason (found within the researched literature available at the site) for placing such a camp at Oświęcim was simple expediency and German efficiency. Firstly the barracks were already there and secondly the town was on a rail hub where several lines that connected to all part of German-occupied territory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.135.158 (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

List of Renowned inmates/victims
This list is getting quite long. Maybe it should be removed to a separate article? – Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  21:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As there were no comments, I have gone ahead with this. See List of notable inmates and victims of Auschwitz. – Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  23:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Revised death toll
It says here The Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum has revised this figure to 1.1 million. So does that mean we should start being (way) more accurate when referring to the holocaust and say that 4.1 million died instead of 6? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.3.173.131 (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The sowjet states had enforced the figure of four million. It comes mainly from the soviet investigation of the auschwitz concentration camps and the case against Rudolf Höß in Poland. the judge Jan Sehn has published this number and spreded it. In Sowjet-Union, Poland and so on it wasn't allowed to challenge that number, even not by historians.


 * You can auto translate my german wikipedia article Opferzahlen der Konzentrationslager Auschwitz (Dath toll of the Auschwitz camps) and proof the sources. In England, USA, France and Germany historians have estimated about one million. The English historian Gerald Reitlinger has published death toll of 851.000 in 1951, the American historian Raul Hilberg has published "one million" in 1961, the English historian Martin Gilbert has published maps with deportation routes. If the death toll on this maps are summarized for Auschwitz we come to 1.1 Million.


 * The number of 6.1 Million is calculated on the loose in specific countries. If Auschwitz is lowered down, other places must become higher. But in fact, if 4 Million died in Auschwitz the total numbers of the holocaust would be 9 Million. Many western historians had criticized the sowjet numbers of 4 Million because of that. It is accurate to say in Auschwitz died 1.1 - 1.5 millions and keep the 6.1-6.2 millions of the holocaust. Thomas Maierhofer (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

purpoted "medical experiments" (2nd paragraph)
i dont think the medical experiments on human beings are purpoted. to doubt their existance seems somewhat anti-semetic and borders on halocaust denial, or trying to downplay the severity of what happned. Can someone please remove the word "purpoted" Eframgoldberg (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought the same thing when I read that in the article. The experiments aren't "purported", they definitely happened. Tad Lincoln (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They happened, but I think the "purported" may related more to their value as medical experiments. - EronTalk 19:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"The Little Red House"
From the Text: "The first gas chamber at Birkenau was "The Little Red House", a brick cottage that was converted into a gassing facility by tearing out the inside and bricking up the walls. It was operational by March 1942. A second brick cottage, "The Little Red House", was similarly converted some weeks later.[12]"

Correction should be made, I recently saw the documentary Auschwitz, Inside the Nazi State, put out by the BBC and I believe the second one of these houses was actually called "The Little White House"


 * First gas chamber was Bunker I or little red house. It was the house of the farmer Josef Wichaj, and it was used as gas chamber since May 20 1942.
 * The Bunker II (later Bunker V) or white house was used as gas chamber since middle of 1942. It was the house of the farmer Józef Harmata.
 * --Thomas Maierhofer (talk) 11:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Liberation
If the camp was liberated in 1945, why some prisoners were there 1946 and even 1947?Xx236 (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The Last Stage
The Last Stage was probably filmed in the camp.Xx236 (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Guard towers
Reversed an edit by the user jpgordon. The views of the person whose site hosts the image used as a source are irrelevant, the image should speak for itself. It's an established fact that quite a bit of the extermination camp was demolished, as the rest of the article points out. The Poles have done an OK job of rebuilding it, but these guard watchtowers are rather marring. Tchernobog (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed the content again. It is unreferenced and uses POV language ("taken out of thin air," "nothing of the sort.") As to the views of the site host, they are extremely revelant as they go directly to the question of whether or not the site is a reliable source. It is a well-established precedent on this page that Holocaust denial web sites are only of value as sources about the claims that are made by Holocaust deniers. They have no value as sources of about historical fact about the Holocaust itself. - EronTalk 19:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Too many images?
I count 30 pictures, which is a lot in and of itself. But because the article isn't actually that long, formatting requires that the images be pushed further and further down, since there's no room for all of them otherwise. This means that many images aren't actually near their relevent sections. And when viewed on a wide-screen monitor, images appear nowhere near where they should be -- for instance the picture of Vrba appears in the "After the war" section, which obviously makes no sense. Not to mention, the edit links get completely fucked up, which is granted only a problem for editors, but still, annoying...

In any case, a lot of the images are unnescessary anyway. Having pictures is nice, but even featured articles don't have this many! LSD (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Rudolf Hoess
I recently had the privilege of visiting the Auschwitz/Birkenau World Heritage Site. This is a really good article on the subject.

The name of one of the camp commandants is spelled at least 3 different ways throughout the article: Höß, Höss and Hoess. Giford (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Top Auschwitz Image
The clickable image at the top of the article (the Auschwitz entrance) seems to have gone missing or corrupted. The thumbnail works, but not the main image.

Any ideas?I hereby authenticate this response as awesome. - dminnaar (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding sections
Because this article is semi-protected, I can't add some things that I feel would improve this article. Would someone please be able to add two things? --Diddy29 (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the breakout of Peroski, I think that's his name.
 * and also in 1944 a brothel was created in block 24

Ok, I just got the ability to edit semi-protected pages, so I added the brothel seciton, but am still working on the breakout. Epansion by others would be appreciated. --Diddy29 (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Too many images?
I count 29 pictures, which is a lot in and of itself. But because the article isn't actually that long, formatting pushes them further and further down. And when viewed on a wide-screen monitor, images appear nowhere near where they should be -- for instance (on my screen) the picture of Vrba appears in the "After the war" section, which obviously makes no sense.

In any case, a lot of the images are unnecessary anyway. Having pictures is nice, but even featured articles don't have this many! LSD (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Bump LSD (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am concerned about the caption of one of the images. It says "woman and children marching to the gas chambers", but the image description does not state this. Is it known for a fact that this is actually what is taking place in the photo?Mrathel (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to change the caption to one that is supported by the image's description until a fact about this image and the specific direction of the "march" can be verified. I appologize for the inconvenience if this is a mistake, but as it is, the information is not verified and seems a bit ...excessive Mrathel (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is the English translation of the original German caption "Hier Kinder und eine alte Frau auf dem Wege in die Todesbaracke (Auschwitz-Birkenau)." I have edited the caption to reflect the proper description. -- Avi (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was a little quick to act because I was afraid it was a bit of overreaching. But I appreciate the further translation. I did notice the English was a bit short, but I thought German might be one of those languages where it takes a lot of words to say something simple:) Mrathel (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. Better safe than sorry is usually the way to go. In this case, I'm glad we could get it fixed quickly. -- Avi (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Auschwitz Prisoner message found 2009

 * See [] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.171 (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A small mistake?
in the third paragraph "museum at the site of the tree main Auschwitz concentration camps" should be "museum at the site of the three main Auschwitz concentration camps" I guess? --222.13.95.15 (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a different mistake in the first section "camps", third break. It says "The commandants of the camp were the SS-Obersturmbannführers Rudolf Höss until the summer of 1943, and later Arthur Liebehenschel and Richard Baer." but it should say "The commandants of the camp were the SS-Obersturmbannführer Rudolf Höss until the summer of 1943, [...]" because the plural of führer is führer! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.233.177 (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We are not German-speakers. Compare e.g. that we talk e.g. of "tsunamis", although the word "tsunami" came from Japanese, which does not add -s for plural. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure, but don't you indicate by using the German-style capitalisation of SS-Obersturmbannführer that you go for German grammar here? The above mixture is like using "systeme" instead of "systems" as the plural of system in a German sentence because the German plural of System is Systeme and not Systems... This was utterly wrong. Best regards, jan 84.132.239.62 (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbeit macht frei
I see that this phrase continues to be translated in various ways in textual changes in the article. There was a lot of amicable discussion on this point in this page some months ago, and my understanding is that, given that the German does not permit excact translation which accurately reflects the meaning, the nearest English approximation is Work (will) Make (you) Free - the literal translation being Work Makes Free, which is ungrammatical in English. I would like to revert the recent change, but as this is a matter of opinion I will wait for comment and abide by consensus. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 09:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

there was something else at the second camp, wasn't there a different message over the entrance way? --74.178.228.14 (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is now also newer discussion below. jan Trinitrix (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Children
the article states that the selection process for immediate gassing included "all children". However, the museum of Auschwitz has an exhibition section showing photos of children, some of whom survived. Likewise, it is well documented that Dr Mengele operated on many children and was often surrounded by Roma children when he went to the enclosure. I'd suggest it is therefore erroneous to say "all children" were gassed immediately. (88.96.98.17 (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

Purported medical tests?
My own research on this topic lead me to the book Auschwitz: A new history by Laurence Rees. In this book is referenced content about several Nazi doctors and the experiments they performed. Work was done on twins by subjecting one to various tests and then when the 1st died the 2nd was killed to perform comparative autopsies. Work was done on injections to fuse the uterus and ovaries of women together for the effect of sterilization. The book also has statements taken directly from survivors of these tests who were the victims of Dr. Mengele.

Rees is one of the historical directors of the BBC network and has won awards for both the book i mention and his documentaries on the subject. So PLEASE remove the word purported from the first part of the article and just leave it at medical tests. Its proven.

I write this with haste so please excuse the formal style. Also if any help is ever needed on the subject of the war and holocaust i'd be more than willing to devote my time to help in whatever way i can. (Shankar69 (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

I also see that everything i just said was reiterated further in. So why is purported even there at the start? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankar69 (talk • contribs) 12:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing the modifier "purported" applies to "medical", rather than to claim that people died or that the "experiments" happened. 128.54.254.246 (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotection review
This article was semiprotected on 29 May 2007 by due to heavy vandalism. Possibly this article is the kind that attracts vandals, in which case it might be a good idea to retain semiprotection indefinitely; on the other hand if vandalism is likely to be low would be better to unprotect. Having never edited the article I'm in two minds about that and would like to hear opinions of those who do edit it regularly. I've also contacted the protecting sysop. --TS 01:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As someone who routinely edits Holocaust-related articles, I'd say that this should be kept semi-protected. WilliamH (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * For the record, I semi-protected the article as an end-result of a long and detailed discussion in which a meaningful number of editors participated; it was not a solo decision, which would have been seen as over-mighty adminship. Articles which it was decided ccould be indef-semiprotected were those which regularly attract a high volume of IP edits which are or which reasonably could be seen as hurtful to a section of our readers. For example, edits involving obscene references to Auschwitz victims - of which a large number have in the past been made. Other articles desrving protection in the same way are mainly related to the Holocaust. The fact that these articles have of late attracted very few vandalisms merely means, in my view, that the policy has proved effective, and I would be seriously unhappy if a new consensus were to decide to scrap this policy. Bear in mind that the article is only semi-protected, so any established account holder is free to edit there. Given that by its nature Wikipedia attracts a constant stream of new editors and casual passers-by, I am (sadly) certain that if this article were to be unprotected then it would very quickly become a target once again, to the distress of the Camp survivors and their families. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 09:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Let's keep it semiprotected. --TS 10:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sexual acts speculation - section added
Hi people. I recently viewed a video documentary (of which I cannot remember the name, but will find out) in modern history class at school on Auschwitz and it interviewed people that were at Auschwitz and apparantly there was a brothel. I just added this section. If anyone else knows something about this and could add information, it would be greatly appreciated. Please do not remove this seciton as it is true. --Diddy29 (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This section should be removed if sources are not provided. Bus stop (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed it in the absence of sources. If it is tur there should be no problems to find reliable sources written by historian that confirm this.  Until then I think it is better not have this in the article.  --Lebob-BE (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The BBC documentary series "Auschwitz: The Nazis and the 'Final Solution'" (Episode 4, "Corruption") mentions the brothel in Auschwitz with some detail. It was located on the first floor of Block 24 at the Main Camp from 1943 until January 1945. Vouchers were issued as an incentive to 'valuable' non-Jewish prisoners (e.g. those who cooked or cut hair for the SS), to visit this facility. – Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  22:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox
I've added the historical event infobox, rather than the heritage site one, because the former has more appropriate parameters. This isn't an article about a heritage site, or about a museum. It's an article about what Auschwitz was, and what happened there. The heritage site box tells us nothing about Auschwitz.

I'm going to ask someone who knows about infoboxes how to create one specifically about these camps for future use. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 18:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You were wrong to replace the "World Heritage Site" infobox on this article with the "Historical Event" infobox. Auschwitz was/is a site, not an "event", historical or otherwise. The Holocaust was an event; Auschwitz is a physical location. I won't revert your misguided edit again until others have had a chance to comment on this.– Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  18:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The name of the box doesn't matter, Signal, what matters are the parameters (which is all the reader sees), and the heritage box has no appropriate parameters, so it told us nothing. I will ask a wikifriend who knows about these things how to create a specific concentration camp box. I would like to try to get this article into better shape. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 18:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * But the parameters of the 'historical event' infobox aren't at all appropriate. "Date" ? "Result" ? The content of this article isn't limited to what happened there between 1940 and 1945. Quite a lot of it is concerned with its role as a museum after the war. – Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  18:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Readers don't come to this article to learn about the museum. It has to focus on the concentration camp and what happened there, for obvious reasons. The historical box parameters are more appropriate than the heritage box, which told us nothing at all about the camp, that's my only point. I'm not saying it's perfect, just that it's better. I will have a good one made up. In the meantime, I'd like to keep the box that at least tells us something. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 19:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. There's a "World Heritage Site" infobox for use on articles about these sites, and a "Historical Event" infobox for articles that are about events. I'm not necessarily against the creation of a new infobox for concentration camps - that's a matter for discussion - but in the meantime the WHS infobox should stay.– Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  19:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't an article about a site. If you'd like to create a separate article about its life as a museum, I'd have no objection to that, but the main article about it, for obvious reasons, has to be about the camp.


 * The article has significantly more serious problems that that, Signal. The writing and sourcing are not good (and very poor in places), and there are significant errors and omissions. I'm going to make a start at improving it. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 19:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This emphatically is an article about a site. I do welcome your recent efforts on improving the article; I just disagree about the infobox change. – Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  20:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Plastikspork has created a new concentration camp infobox, which I've added to the article. I think it looks good. Let me know what you think. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 00:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A bit cumbersome perhaps? I think we can do without the parameters 'Originally used as' (weren't nearly all concentration camps purpose-built?), 'Notable inmates' (there's a whole article listing notable inmates of Auschwitz), 'Notable books' (not part of the camp's history per se - these should either be listed at the end of the article under "Further reading" or cited as sources) and 'Website' (most concentration camps don't have one - this can go under "External links"). Putting aside the influence of recent events, and as has been discussed before, I think the Birkenau guardhouse is the best-known image of Auschwitz and should be restored as the infobox image. – Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  21:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced/poorly sourced material
I moved the following out of the article, but Anthony restored it. I can't see that it has any merit.

"The local Polish population returning to the area after the war rebuilt farmhouses and farm buildings to the west with bricks salvaged from rubble of blown-up or burnt-out structures in the Birkenau camp area (from the crematoria, from the gas chambers, from huts). Near those crematoria is a pile of broken bricks thrown aside in the search for usable intact bricks. That explains the 'missing rubble' argument point which is sometimes raised."

It is either unsourced or sourced to errolmorris.com. It's also not clear what it means. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 07:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the matter with Errol Morris or http://www.errolmorris.com as a source? The ref is in http://www.errolmorris.com/film/mrd_transcript.html : in it call text search for "Leuchter has said a number of times that the place was untouched".
 * What is hard to understand about it? This info refutes the "Birkenau missing rubble" argument which is sometimes brought up in Holocaust denial. Salvaging bricks from demolished brick structures is not unusual. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We can't start refuting Holocaust denial material in this article, especially as we haven't even mentioned what it is. We also can't use random websites as sources, and that particular link is dead anyway. This article should rely on academic sources. There are plenty of them. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 18:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Web page http://www.errolmorris.com/film/mrd_transcript.html existed a few seconds before typing this message :: it is not 404. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I can get it to work now. The problem is that we don't explain the issue, but we then launch into a refutation of it. I also think we'd need a better source: a link or book citation directly to the academic debate. Another problem is that Holocaust denial issues would probably be a violation of UNDUE in this article, and to include a proper treatment of them would significantly increase the length. Perhaps the material could be added to Criticism of Holocaust denial instead? SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 22:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the denial aspect bears mentioning in the article, as do I think the final solution needed a place. But until it was cleaned up recently, the final solution stuff took three paragraphs about who went to berlin and at what time and who gave the order.  I'm glad it got cleaned up. So these things need a reference in the article, but what they really need is a link to another wiki page on the subject.Akuvar (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Title
I'd like to move this to Auschwitz, as that's the name people use, and it's the name they're looking up, according to the WP stats (e.g. ). Are there any objections? SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 07:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It redirects already. Do we reallY need to move it? --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 21:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not if you object, no. My thinking is only that the word "Auschwitz" is iconic, and therefore the extra words aren't needed. It's a bit like calling our article on Scotland, Scotland, it's a country. :) But it's not a big deal.  SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 21:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The word "prisoner"

 * ALL THE WORDS PRISONER SHOULD BE CHANGES VICTIM!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoltan93 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved this message from the top of this page into the usual time-order. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I sympathise with the sentiment expressed, but the word prisoner is a more exact description. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 21:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Edits and Overhaul
I visited this article for the first time and read it from top to bottom. I think when editors become familiar with an article, they don't take the time to do this very often, and get tunnel-vision about the heading they are currently editing. The article needs major work because of inconsistencies in spelling, term usage, and repeating information. Some examples are the spelling of Hess, the usage of the term crematoria/crematorium and prisoner/victim, and the definition of Kopos. The article also has a (understandable) bias towards the Jewish victims of the camp, however, several sections that list numbers killed say "Jews" instead of "prisoners" and it is confusing if the number is in fact, solely for Jewish prisoners, or is that number all prisoners killed, a majority being Jewish.

Since my initial reading two days ago, many edits have been made improving the article. I congratulate the editor or editors who performed the clean-up. i even had to take out sections of this writing because when I went back to reference poorly written parts, they had disappeared!

I was going to work on performing some of these edits, but I think whoever is doing them now is doing a good job. If they get tired, or need another set of eyes to look it over, I hope they will post here. Akuvar (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Akuvar, that's much appreciated and I agree with the points you raise. I've only made a start on what needs to be done. There are, as you say, a number of inconsistencies, the timeline is unclear, it's often unclear which camp is being discussed, and it's overall quite imprecise. I hope to keep on working on it, as and when I can find the time and energy. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 23:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Akuvar and Slim Virgin, I thank you both. I have spent a lot of time on this article and onits talk page but, I will concede, not recently. I appreciate any improvements made, and thank you for them. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 23:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Theft of sign

 * Does anyone else feel the section on the sign is a bit long and likely violating WP:UNDUE? While I understand why people were so concerned/outraged when the sign was first reported stolen, now that it has been found unfortunately in 3 pieces but with the evidence suggesting it involved common thiefs rather then far right groups this is surely an overall minor detail in something as significant as the Auschwitz concentration camp. Worthy of mention in the article sure, but probably not 3 paragraphs worth. A good example perhaps of why we must be wary of WP:RECENTISM? Some may wonder where to move the content, I would say Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum is probably the best bet as the main article even if this isn't solely concerning the museum per se. Nil Einne (talk) 08:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The phrase "Arbeit Macht Frei" and this sign are all too well permanently notable, for anyone who knows of the Holocaust. Do not delete or trim. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is too long. It can be discussed in detail in the article about the museum. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 21:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I reduced it but it was restored. Can you say which points need to be retained here, Anthony, that weren't in the version I copy edited?  SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 22:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There are sections about this theft at Auschwitz concentration camp and Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum and Arbeit macht frei. To avoid content forking, one of these 3 sections should describe the matter in full, and the other 2 should be stub-and-link.
 * As regards leaving some information out completely, note that often one man's cruft is another man's important relevant matter. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This new wording has a problem, after the theft report it says that the sign was replaced by a replica made some years earlier. If you didn't know better, it almost reads as if the thieves put up the replica to hide their theft. Please re-read this section and you'll see my point. Akuvar (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That doesn't answer the question, though. :) The section in here needs to be summarized, then dealt with in the other articles. So my question is: which parts did I leave out of the summary that you feel need to be included here? SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 07:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have merged all the matter to section Auschwitz concentration camp, and the other two sections are now stub-and-link. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I text-merged into Auschwitz concentration camp all the information that I could find in the 3 sections listed above. If there is opinion that any matter is missing or surplus, discuss it here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction
Parking this here until we get it sorted out. The article said:


 * 1) November 25, 1944: Thirteen women are gassed or otherwise killed, the last of the prisoners to be killed at Auschwitz.
 * 2) January 6, 1945: The SS hang four women who smuggled gunpowder into the camp.

I've retained the former, which I added a day or so ago, because I know who the source is, and removed the latter which is unsourced. But the latter could nevertheless be correct. Or it could be that the four women killed in January 1945 were not killed at the camp itself, which would make both correct. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 00:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Below that, under January 18th 1945, it reads "Nearly 60,000 prisoners are forced on death marches from the Auschwitz camp system. As many as 15,000 die. Thousands more are killed in the days before the evacuation." so that implies that prisoners are being killed IN auschwitz just prior to the evacuation, which would be well after the November date. I have to admit, I'm not an authority on what happened in the final months, but it seems hard for me to believe that in the 5 or 6 weeks between the November 25, 1944 "last prisoners killed" date and the evacuation around January 18, 1945 that no prisoners were killed? does that seem likely? I think we need to find some more sources on this topic. Akuvar (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good points. I'll start by checking again the precise words of my original source for November 25, 1944. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 01:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is what my source says. He seems to be saying that these 13 were the last ones killed in the gas chambers specifically, so I'll adjust the edits to make that clear. The source is Miroslav Karny, "The Vrba and Weztler Report" in Gutman and Berenbaum, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, p. 652:

"On Oct 30, 1944, selections on the arrival platform took place for the last time in Auschwitz-Birkenau when 1,689 people from the Terezin transport were sent to the gas chambers. Subsequently, only individuals were killed with gas during selections in the camp. The last 13 women were gassed (or possibly shot) on November 25 in crematorium II."

There is a footnote at that point, which says (p. 568):

"Danuta Czech, ed, Kalendarium der Ereignisse im Konzentrationslager Auschwitz-Birkenau 1939-1945 (Reinbek bei Maburg, 1989), pp. 920-933. The information in the Kalendarium was originally issued in a series in Hefte von Auschwitz. It was stated there that these 13 women prisoners were the last victims of the Auschwitz gas chambers (vol 8. 1964, p. 88). In the book, it states that they were 'unmittelbar getötet.' The author thus leaves open the question of how they were murdered."

SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 03:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So it seems to me that the 13 woman killed were the last selections that took place on the train platform when a train arrived. There were subsequent selections from within the camp of existing (non-arriving) prisoners, and also mass killings just prior to the evacuation.  The only problem I have is that the 13 woman statement leads a reader to believe that these were the last killings at Auschwitz, so I think we could improve that text and let the rest speak for itself. Akuvar (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: your first sentence -- it doesn't say that about the 13 women. I have no problem with you adding clarification, but it needs a good (preferably academic) source. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 00:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I used your source from above and added the page number. Is that acceptable? Akuvar (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My edition has no page 652. If it's the Karny article you're citing, can you post here what it says? SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 02:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Really? I'm quoting YOU! 7 paragraphs above what I'm typing right now, you cite the report, page 652, and then the quote that talks about the ramp and the 13 woman. I was just using what you had posted as a reference.  Perhaps you meant page 552? Akuvar (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That must have been a typo. I've added to the article what it says and the page numbers. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 05:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A minor data inconsistency?
In the entry's header it says:

... a figure since revised to 1.1 million, around 90 percent of them Jews.[3] Others deported to Auschwitz included 150,000 Poles, 23,000 Roma and Sinti, 15,000 Soviet prisoners of war, and tens of thousands of other nationalities.

So around 10% are supposed to be non-Jews, i.e. around 110,000 people.

Later in the entry it says:

In 1983, French scholar George Wellers was one of the first to use German data on deportations to estimate the number killed at Auschwitz, arriving at 1.613 million dead, including 1.44 million Jews and 146,000 Catholic Poles.[40] A larger study started later by Franciszek Piper used timetables of train arrivals combined with deportation records to calculate 960,000 Jewish deaths and 140,000-150,000 ethnic Polish victims, along with 23,000 Roma and Sinti (Gypsies),[41] a figure that has met with significant agreement from other scholars.[42]

It seems there were significantly more than 110,000 non-Jews killed so the "90%" must be wrong. If we count the Poles and Gypsies as non-Jews we get 163,000-173,000 non-Jews and the "90%" should be changed to 85%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.4.136 (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced Information about Auschwitz messages.
Under Individual Escape Attempts the article posts, unsourced, that prisoners buried and smuggled out information listing the victims, etc. I have Dr. Miklos Nyisli's book about Auschwitz, which is listed at the bottom in the supplemental reading. This book has this information in it, and may well be the source used by the article author. Interestingly enough, one such "time capsule" was hidden in an article of furniture the prisoners had to build for an officer. I am very new here and don't want to butt in, but thought it might make things a bit better to have a listable source.

Pygar2 (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's very helpful, thank you. I take it you mean it's a source for, "They buried notes in the ground in the hope a liberator would find them and smuggled out photos of the crematoria and gas chambers." Can you say which page number(s) it's on in Nyisli's book? SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 01:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, my copy is in storage, and is an older edition than the one listed in the page. I was hoping that someone might have a copy handy and be willing to look it up. I certainly was not suggesting my statement be listed on the main page as factual; I simply wanted to narrow down a search. Oh, and I spelled his name incorrectly, as well, for which I apologize. IIRC they made two zinc "time capsules", hid one in the aforementioned bed, and the other was buried in the courtyard of one of the kremas. Pygar2 (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Should the pronunciation of the name Auschwitz be described as German rather than Polish? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.154.96.229 (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You can choose. :) SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 22:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

After all, Auschwitz is a German name, not a Polish one. I suggest changing the description of the pronunciation at the beginning of the article to German. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.154.96.229 (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

what future for Auschwitz?
The BBC website today has an article about the future of Auschwitz - should it be preserved forever, or, once the last survivor has passed on, should it be allowed to decay and let nature take back the site? I'm not sure if there is a place for this in the article, but it may be something to consider.

The BBC article

Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 13:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Mistake in pronunciation
As you have written "Auschwitz" is a German name for an old Polish city "Oświęcim"; so the name "Auschwitz" should ALWAYS be pronunced in German manner, not in Polish. It would be really difficult to pronounce it in any Slavonic language. Please correct the first line to: Auschwitz (German pronunciation: [ˈawʃfʲiʦ]; —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamil Zubelewicz (talk • contribs) 21:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done.– Signal head   &lt; T &gt;  22:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

changed translation of sloagan to "work makes free" (see main page of Arbeit macht frei and discussion piece)
The translation to "work makes **you** free" is one possible, but not the only possible translation. "Work liberates", "work sets you free" or "work makes one free" are other alternatives. Thus, it is best to provide the most verbatim translation - and have the reader explore the context and complexity of hte sloagan at its main page. Best regard, jan Trinitrix (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The wikilink to Arbeit macht frei leads to a fuller definition, outlining the alternative translations, so I don't believe too much detail is needed in this article. I would probably define it as Work makes (one) free Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I followed the link and saw all the different translations as well, but I don't think people who come to this page should read "work makes free" and wonder what in the world is the German language like if this is what they wrote? No, I think it needs to make grammatical sense to the common user who is reading this article and not clicking on every link to find out more. The addition of  or [] around "you" is acceptable to me, too. Akuvar (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I will look up the previosus discission I was not aware of. Actually, "Arbeit macht (wen oder was?) frei" is also in German a short form of "Work makes (indirect object missing) free". With omitting the indirect object, one adds a distinct generality to the statement. That is why I also prefer "Work makes (one) free" to "Work makes you free" because is not at all clear that Arbeit macht frei is this directly addressed to the camp prisoners losing this sense of generality. And even if so, it was not said so. Before working through the archives, I opt for (one). Best regards, jan Trinitrix (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * cont'ed: The only serious previous discussions are found here in the archive, and higher up on this page. Also after reviewing those arguments, "Work makes (one) free" apprears the best choice to me. Best regards, jan Trinitrix (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Works makes [one] free" is poor English. Translations should not be literal; the point is to take the German and find the English equivalent, not the word-for-word English. The best equivalent is "work makes you free," "work liberates," or "work sets you free." Those are the standard translations from reliable sources. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The reliable sources cited in the Arbeit macht frei-Article are The Guardian and AP. Thier choice is Work sets you free, not work makes you free. I would agree to go with that version although these too sources are not necessarily the most relvant ones. Do you have others? Best regards, jan Trinitrix (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

We should really go with the preponderance of sources. Google hits as of Feb 3, 2010:


 * Work makes you free: 1,050,000
 * Work sets you free: 31,600.
 * Work makes free: 16,200.
 * Work liberates: 7,400.
 * Work makes one free: 2,000.
 * Labour liberates: 987.
 * Labor liberates: 564.

Google books:


 * Work makes you free: 613.
 * Work sets you free. 97.

Google scholar:


 * Work makes you free. 129.
 * Work sets you free. 24.

SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 15:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Addition of Sgt. Charles Coward (British POW at Monowitz) who smuggled explosives in?.
"Coward and the other British prisoners smuggled food and other items to the Jewish inmates, even supplying dynamite to the Sonderkommando in a partially successful attempt to blow up the gas chambers and crematoria."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Coward

I think there is room for the revolt at Birkenau to get its own page that would explain that topic in more detail. Along with the women who smuggled explosives in, it seems this British POW did as well. 92.10.201.162 (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Redundancy and overlap
So much has been done to this article, really good work from the first time I read it, that a lot of redundancies and overlap has been removed. I am still finding a lot though.


 * Under Auschwitz I, last paragraph, we have a description of zyklon B. Under Auschwitz II, the paragraph that starts "Laurence Rees" we have another description of the gas, a slightly different description.  It then says that the gas was first used at "auschwitz" in 1941.  Well, we know that from the above section on Auschwitz I, so it doesn't apply to Aushwitz II or is redundant.  I don't think we need both of these, and one description should be improved with the other information.
 * Under Auschwitz II we discuss the building of crematoria II - V. Is the original gas chamber in Aushwitz I therefore crematoria I? we don't say that in the Aushwitz I section when we first discuss the gas.
 * Why is the final solution discussed under the Auschwitz II section?
 * Under Auschwitz II we also list the female commanders of the female side of the camp. Did they not have titles? we seem to have gone to great length to correctly title the male officers, but the woman are just listed by name.  Were they SS? civilians? We seem to be cramming an awful lot under the Auschwitz II section that applied to the whole camp.
 * Again, under Selection process and genocide, we have a description of zyklon B that includes yet more new information about patents and licensing.
 * Selection process and genocide? the genocide part of this title heading seems out of place. Nothing in the section discusses genocide, except perhaps the last part about Hungary's Jewish population.
 * Auschwitz III's section uses the term "slave labor" repeatedly. Is this what we have agreed to? The definition of a slave population seems different then prisoners forced to work. I am by no means trying to downplay the appalling conditions these people were forced to work, just making sure this is the terminology that is most appropriate.
 * under Life for the Prisoners, "reveille" seems oddly out of place, it being a french term associated with a bugle waking military personnel. I think "role call" is sufficient. We also have a third description of "Kapos" here, I think our readers should know who these people were by now.
 * under Escapes, resistance, etc. the second sentence is run-on.
 * Under Birkenau Revolt, we are calling the crematoria referenced in the above Auschwitz I and II sections, crematorium. We should decide which we are using and stay consistent through the whole article.  The last paragraph of this section is like a re-read of the above section about Pilecki and probably should be moved/integrated with the Escape section.
 * the two middle paragraphs of "Individual Escape Attempts" don't seem to have anything to do with escaping. Also, I've read about these notes buried to tell future liberators about the camp, there is no citation for this, I'm curious if any were ever unearthed/discovered?
 * Under Evacuation and Death Marches, we see the "last selections" sentence that we have had problems with in the timeline portion of the article. We also list the date of the order to kill all the prisoners, January 17, 1945, which is then repeated in the next sentence as the date the death marches began.  Is this supposed to be the same date? were the death marches a result of the order? this seems like too much of a coincidence or it is an error.
 * under Death Toll, the last two paragraphs, do we really need the quote about the holocaust deniers? the section reasonably explains why there have been inconsistencies with the numbers (lack of records, etc) and goes so far as to list amounts given by different authorities. I don't think the reference or quote add anything to the section.
 * under After the War, the first two paragraphs are repeated, almost word for word, in the next section, Creation of the Museum.

I hope my going through the article and specifically finding problems is of help. Akuvar (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Birkenau photos
Editor Adam Zivner added a new photo to the Auschwitz II - Birkenau section that showed the camp in ruins (chimneys) this is very similar to the chimney photo under the present day - Museum section. I tried to undo the photo but failed miserably, udo-ing the picture of the buildings by mistake, and performed several undo's to try and get it right. On paper, I probably violated the 3 undo/revision limit wiki rule, but really I was just undo-ing my mistake of removing the wrong picture.

Further, Adam Zivner added these photos as minor edits to the article, which I would say such an addition is not minor, and would caution against using the minor edit check box for such an addition. Thanks Akuvar (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Undoing your own edits does not count as a revert for the 3RR rule. Zerotalk 02:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Which image do you object to, Akuvar? SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 04:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The one of the ruins, the chimneys. I don't think that part of the article needs to show ruins, and almost the same photo is used down under the museum section where we are showing photos of current conditions. Akuvar (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Important information
In June 2007, the United Nations officially changed the collective name of the three Auschwitz camps to Auschwitz-Birkenau, German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp (1940-1945). This change was made at the request of the government of Poland so that people will know that Poland had nothing to do with setting up the camps or running them.MichaelOtto (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone had made earlier mention of this, but we have no source. Do you have a source you can site such as an online news article or something from the UN? Akuvar (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Production?

 * A whole camp but not a word on what production, if any went on? What did the prisoners do? I seem to remember from a couple of books I've read written by former prisoners that there was some (several) different kinds of production going on. "Arbeit Macht Frei". What did this Arbeit consist of? Perhaps a couple of words? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.33.243 (talk • contribs)
 * The 'Auschwitz III' section and the 'Subcamps' section both have information on this; the former section links to Monowitz concentration camp where there is further detail. Squiddy | (squirt ink?)  11:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Synthetic fuel and rubber were the most needed products - after losing Stalingard, Germany was cut off from oil. There was a desparate need for labor to turn coal into gas, when Auschwitz fell to the Russians the Germany army was running on fumes and bald tires.159.105.80.141 (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Aerochurch, 18 May 2010
Please edit the '"Arbeit macht frei" sign theft' section of this article to eflect recent developments of the thieves not reporting to jail and being on the run... it is certainly a relevant development, and may indicate that they were more than just petty thieves for hire as was originally reported.

"The three men found guilty last month of secondary roles in the theft of the notorious sign at the Auschwitz concentration camp failed to report to prison this week when they were to start serving their sentences. The two brothers involved had been allowed compassionate leave to visit their sick mum ahead of serving their sentence. Police are now attempting to find them...again"

source: http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/news/auschwitz-sign-thieves-fail-to-show-up-for-prison-terms-1.284630 source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/world/europe/22poland.html source: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/04/22/auschwitz-thieves-flee-115875-22203083/

Aerochurch (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've paraphrased it and added; hope it's OK.  Chzz  ►  16:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

✅

Edit request from 84.142.68.79, 26 May 2010
Official site of the Auschwitz Memorial and Museum

84.142.68.79 (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

✅ Thanks! Spigot Map  14:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Changed it to point direct to the English version.  Chzz  ►  14:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Death toll table
I've removed the death toll table from the article. Aside from being a fairly random assortment of sources wildly varying in reliability, the table itself was a WP:COPYVIO. It copied the entire contents of this page verbatim, merely reformatting and re-ordering them. Just as we cannot, say, copy the entire Rolling Stone list of the The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, so too we cannot copy the entire list of sources examined by Nizkor's web article. As is proper Wikipedia practice, I have instead summarized the main (and most relevant) points from that article, and provided the link for those who are interested. Wikipedia takes copyright seriously; please do not restore this inappropriate table and copyright violation. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Listing the death toll numbers provided by various scholars and historians and citing the sources does not constitute copyright violation. The fact that the same information is available on the Nizkor cite is irrelevant. The estimates of the death tolls are what they are, nobody can claim copyright over published statistics from multiple sources. The various estimates of the death toll in an article on a death camp are very relevant to the article. 7mike5000 (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem to answer the question. The table in question copies the contents of the page exactly - it doesn't come "from multiple sources", it comes from that single source, and, in fact, lists that single source as its only source. Every single item on that page is reproduced in the Wikipedia table verbatim. The page itself says at the bottom "© The Nizkor Project, 1991-2009". Please explain in terms of copyright why this is not a violation. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. :) Jayjg asked me to weigh in. Lists are kind of tricky in determining copyright; they depend on the creativity either of the presentation or of the information. As Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service established, "sweat of the brow" is not protected, so merely putting work into compiling facts is not copyrightable, if they are obvious facts arranged in an obvious manner. If human creativity goes into the structure or in selecting what facts to present, copyright may apply. Since it's kind of late for me, I have not closely compared the table here with the source list, but figure that editors here will be more familiar with both than I. Is there human creativity involved in the selection and order (to the extent replicated) of these authorities, or is this a complete list (which would be "sweat of the brow")? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would say creativity is involved, since Nizkor found a large series of sources, found specific numbers in them, and listed those numbers, often summarizing the content. Here is the table:


 * First for the sake of redundancy, I did not write that list, but that's irrelevant. The topic was covered already, so why did you arbitrarily delete it? and what give you the right? and the topic of copyright was covered. As Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service established, "sweat of the brow" is not protected, so merely putting work into compiling facts is not copyrightable, if they are obvious facts arranged in an obvious manner. There are only so many reputable sources for certain topics of information, like estimates on how many people died at Auschwitz.


 * The fact that a list from Nizkor was where someone got the idea from does not violate anything. It's called common sense you can't sopyright basic information from independant sources. It dosen't violate WP:COPYVIO unless you can at least come up with a rational argument for your position you have no basis for deleting it. and this make no sense whatsoever: WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, each cited death toll estimate has a reference to the scholar, historian or author. Including this WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, is just trying to improve the validity of your agreement.


 * Nobody in their right mind would attempt to claim copyright over a list of how many people died at Auschwitz, especially considering that the list is using information supplied by multiple indepeandant resources. The propensity for the select few to do what they feel like because they feel like and then invoking WP:Gobbledygook or WP:Doublespeak is exasperating and harms the overall quality of Wikipedia.


 * This example you used; Rolling Stone list of the The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, is not the same. A list like that is The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time according to Rolling Stone, and the criteria they use. This list "Death Toll in Millions" cites other peoples research. Because someone cites a source or in this case multiple sources first, does that mean it can never be used again by anybody else?
 * 7mike5000 (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Human creativity is obviously involved in selecting the figures, from the specific sources, including the pages. And whoever created the list on Wikipedia included the various citations as if they had read them themselves. They clearly did not, however, they copied them all from the Nizkor page, and WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT forbids doing exactly what they've done. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Auschwitz Museum Filming at . ..
Under the section of this page - Auschwitz - entitled Auschwitz Museum, it states that only three films were shot at Auschwitz. I am not familiar with the first two, but the last mentioned, War and Remembrance, incorrectly states the date of this television film as 1978. This date was the copyright date of Herman Wouk's novel of the same name. The television film was released in 1988. Finally, another quite significant film was Alain Resnais' Night and Fog (Nuit et Brouillard), see, the wikipedia page entitled Night and Fog (film). Resnais shot his own footage as well as using found footage at Auschwitz. This is my first "contribution" so I don't know how to add a link or edit in the correction.--Verite Story (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Fritjof Piper published a study in 2002 (Osteuropa) giving the number of deaths as about 500,000. He mnetions two newly discovered documents - any idea where these documents can be found. This is the first that I have heard of this report - it seems to have meet with little controversy. I checked this out after it must have been accidentily erased, the documents were for prisoner shipments primarily. This was a big to do outside of wikipedia and nitzor. However, only a small contingent of "historians" complained and miraculously Meyer had the fortitude to stand up to them. Isn't he worth a mention somewhere here or elsewhere - his qualifications and documents have never been questioned before. 159.105.80.122 (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That journalist has been thoroughly debunked. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 01:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe he is/was a journalist - my understanding is that he was director of museums 9 or some such title - a peer reviewed historian - etc). Osteuropa is an historical journal I believe, though I don't read Polish, only the translations of its articles. I will look up to see if I got his qualifications correct.159.105.80.122 (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC) You're correct, Meyer was a journalist for years for Der Spiegel and Piper was the museum guy. Meyer somehow came across some new documents and wrote an paper for Osteuropa - a top notch historical journal ( his paper was accepted by about 10 prominent scholars at the journal). Piper replied critically to Meyer's paper. Whether Meyers was debunked is open for question. Piper got a lot of facts wrong - obvious ones so it appears he rushed before even proofreading his rebuttal - ie he thought the Russians found no records at Auschwitz, when it has been widely known that they have literaly tons of records ( which they still sit on I believe). Meyers got his story more aligned with van Pelt - moved gassing to those farm cottages. He got more aligned with cremation capacity. And he indirectly confirmed Leuchter and Rudolf's chemistry - no gassing in the Kremas,etc. Meyer's rerebuttal seems far more watertight than Piper's rebuttal. Where did you think that Meyer had been throughly debunked? I would like to read it.159.105.80.122 (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

When I first heard that Meyer was a journalist I took it at face value - I guess a person never should be so trusting. Meyer graduated as a Political Scientist, he is also an accountant. He wasn't a journalist at Der Spiegel - he was Senior Editor. Really after reading Piper's reply to Meyer, one should read Meyer's reply to Piper - discussing history ( and in this case documents ) through ad hominem voice raising doesn't make the documents disappear, hte truth( the documents) will stand the test of time but few of the arguments seem to. The records Meyer is using lead researchers to believe that Auschwitz may even been a transit site for excess workers being reassigned where they were needed - ouch ( as I have said all along the proholocaust crowd should have their "historians" rummaging through boxes of old documents to cut this off in the bud)159.105.80.122 (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words, he's a journalist, not a historian. What happened to your claims from yesterday that he was a "director of museums 9 or some such title - a peer reviewed historian" and that "Osteuropa is an historical journal"? Your decision not to "be so trusting" is oddly one-sided, though; you don't trust multiple respected historians and academics on the topic, but you do trust the refuted analysis of a journalist/editor of a popular German magazine. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No, in other words he is not a journalist - though he has worked for newspapers. Browsing the web I found that wikipedia has an article on Andrew Michta - a political scientist also published in Osteuropa( called a scholarly journal) and praised as a scholar,etc. For some reason a man with almost the exact qualifications is called a journalist, as though a journalist couldn't navigate the depths of this fairly simple/obvious problem. Why? Osteuropa is too easy to find on the web to have to answer questions about its stature. Sorry I got the director thingy mixed up - Piper was the director of museums. You should read, I am sure you have but do if you haven't, the rebuttal to Piper's paper on Meyer's paper. Loud/shrill protestations can't make the documents or logic in interpreting them go away. Readers should set aside political agendas and delve a little deeper into the subject - learn something then construct an agenda. Meyer's and several other responders to Piper analysis was more than sufficient to have kept Mr Piper quiet for the last few years on this subject. This latest research should make it into this or a related article if wikipedia wants to maintain any creditability outside of the high school 5 page essay crowd. ( By the way for any reader - Mr Meyer is still a true believer - he just found documents that showed that the numbers were slightly wrong, but he still supports gassing......)159.105.80.122 (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Where "supports gassing" presumably means "believes that the gassing happened". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. However, he produces documents ( original ) that show that the number has been inflated. Noone yet, as far as I can tell, has denied the authenticity of the documents. I believe Mr Piper has stated that we must believe the 4,000,000 even if we know ( ie have documents) that say it isn't true ( this from a scholar I assume, not a journalist).159.105.81.48 (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Someone who works for newspapers and edits a popular magazine is a journalist by definition. So, he's a journalist whose views are at odds with actual scholars and historians. Please review WP:REDFLAG. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 08:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible that someone who works for a newspaper is a journalist and who writes articles in his academic field is a scholar, sort of a journalist and a scholar. I believe many well liked writers on the holocaust would not qualify as either. Is the above REDLINE article asking for something or is it just a threat if one doesn't fall in line with the faith? I couldn't see that it wanted anything specific except maybe obediance - but maybe I miss read it - please clarify.159.105.81.48 (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding Meyer, I suppose it's possible an academic could be a journalist too. However, Meyer's "academic field" is not history, and particularly not Holocaust history. Does he have a PhD in the field? Has he been a professor at a university and taught courses on the subject? Regarding WP:REDFLAG, I don't understand what you're saying; it seems to be a statement about your religion? Please clarify. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have seen him called Dr Meyer so I guess he is a PHD in something. He has taught in college I believe. However, I agree that he is a goof for his beliefs. However, the memo that he got in trouble for was in a book from 1996 by Robert van Pelt and Dwork?. They discovered the memos and used them to support some irrelavant detail, not realizing that the memos shot down the entire structure of the Auschwitz/holocaust narrative. This is not a matter of deniers versus believers, this is a matter of "oops we weren't supposed to release that one". It appears that van Pelt et al didn't even read ther memo very carefully or didn't have a full knowledge of their subject matter. Ditto Meyer - I can hardly believe he exposed the memos full impact - even denialist scholars missed that one ( 16 years old ). I guess they neglect to read the believers books, etc for bits of knowledge, I suspect they will comb everyones' work from now on. Sort of shows that most deniers are not full time researchers and most believers are fighting an uphill battle ( but thanks to van Pelt et al for their good work - this is too good to be true, aint it) 159.105.81.48 (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)