Talk:IBM and the Holocaust

NPOV
Reliance on Bernstein's opinion outside the overwhelming evidence from other critics against it is highly POV. Viriditas (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Any suggestions on alternative sources? 718smiley.png bobrayner (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe these sources are covered in the "Revelation and Responsibility" section at the back of the book. I'll be more specific later. Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

"Responsability" and history repeating itself

 * Richard Bernstein, writing for The New York Times Book Review, wrote that Black's case "is long and heavily documented, and yet he does not demonstrate that IBM bears some unique or decisive responsibility for the evil that was done."

Undoubtly IBM didn't cause the holocaust, but they certainly supported it. However, some other American firms were also doing business with Nazi Germany, because Germany was "sexy" in the thirties. Therefore keep a look on Charles Lindberghs autobiography. Germany in the thirties was probably as sexy as the USA before 9/11. And nowadays many people all over the world see concentration camps like Guantanamo and think "why is the history always repeating itself?". You need to answer this question by yourself. --178.197.224.6 (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTPLOT
This article took up 21,000 bytes, three quarters of which were summary of the book (see this revert, for instance). That's way too much. Moreover, it's all cited to the book itself, giving no independent indication that the plethora of detail is notable or noticeable. See WP:NOTPLOT: "Similarly, articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents. Such articles should be expanded to have broader coverage." If 3/4 of the article is recap, then the balance is completely off. I'll leave it to a competent reader of the book to summarize the contents in a couple of paragraphs, and the best thing to do is to find a secondary source that treats the book and summarize or paraphrase that. Drmies (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Drmies is wise. bobrayner (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the cited rationale for deletion and removal as well as the interpretation of WP:PLOT. The claim that this material has no indication of independent notability is absolutely absurd.  There is no policy basis to remove a synopsis of a book. Viriditas (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I have now restored the synopsis in part, and reduced it to 789 words, which is well within Wikipedia's best practices for non-fiction synopses in GA and FA articles. Viriditas (talk) 07:50, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Ownership of IBM
In the many re-edits of the page all references to the fate of the German owned subsidary post 1933 is lacking. At some point the company was nationalized.

This omission, which was a deletion, along with the archiving of previous comments and the continual reversion and editing make me question the NPV of this article. Particularly the controversy section should be beefed up, as the thesis and conclusions of the author were controversial, and not accepted without question as the article more-or-less implies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:E80:7ED:2CF8:DDB8:EDCA:571B (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Good luck with that... A few years ago I tried to bring some balance to the article, which resulted in the author of the book starting a campaign to locate and "out" me in real life (stalking). I wholeheartedly agree with your comments, but I've lost interest in trying to influence change here.  If you do decide to try and bring more neutrality to the article, leave me a message on me talk page.  Cheers.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on IBM and the Holocaust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041026065324/http://www1.ushmm.org/outreach/9048-1.htm to http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/08/ramasastry.holocaust.ibm/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Issue of spare parts and special paper for punch cards
Hitler's Willing Business Partners, The Atlantic, Jack Beatty, April 2001.

' .  .  .  according to Black, "Holleriths could not function without IBM's unique paper. Watson controlled the paper.... Holleriths could not function without cards. Watson controlled the cards.... Hollerith systems could not function without machines and spare parts. Watson controlled the machines and spare parts." . .  .  '


 * Edwin Black's case is not merely that IBM sold the machines to the Nazis and then were done with it. His case is that IBM helped them maintain and service the machines. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Isn't Hollerith often mentioned in textbooks on CS and IT?
https://books.google.com/books?id=DuyODAAAQBAJ&pg=PT64&dq=Hollerith+intitle:information+intitle:science&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4lqGquZHWAhVoqVQKHZHNBuYQ6AEIPzAE#v=onepage&q=Hollerith&f=false


 * I think he's often mentioned as one of the endeavors from history which hinted at the possibility of electronic computing. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Valid points but also overstatement?
Tricky trading with the enemy: IBM and the Holocaust, Times of Higher Education, David Cesarani (professor of modern Jewish history at Southampton University), July 13, 2001.

' .  .  .  Black provides shocking evidence that IBM in America continued to supply vital punch cards and other services to its lessees in Nazi Europe, despite the use of IBM technology for repression and in defiance of Allied regulations against trading with the enemy. . .  '

'This story would have made a stunning enough book, but Black massages the facts to blacken IBM still further. . .  .  .  .  Black asserts quite fantastically that 60,000 Jews were imprisoned in April 1933 and consistently exaggerates Nazi repression of the Jews. He also overstates how much world opinion knew or cared about it so as to make Watson appear more nefarious. . .  '


 * This book review also states that Britain concluded a naval agreement with Nazi Germany in 1935 and that 10,000 Jewish refugees decided to go back to Germany. [maybe in large part because of lack of good alternatives?]


 * In general, we want to be just right down the middle. We can include that this review states the book made valid points but also overstated.  And we can include a couple of examples.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * To be neutral, it's important to reference reviews of the 2002 updated paperback edition, which added further details to support Black's points, or the 2012 expanded edition with additional documents. Critiques of the 2001 book can provide insight, but are outdated. JJMM (talk) 23:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * But aren't there going to be more reviews of the first edition? And wouldn't there be a case to be made that we should include the reviews in ratio to the numbers which were actually published for each edition?  Perhaps some case, but to me this would be too perfectionist.


 * I say that we should simply try to include a goodly number of reviews for each of the three editions. And please notice that in this review David Cesarani agrees that the author made a pretty good case even in the first edition. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand. There are many more reviews of the first edition, both positive and negative. And I realize you didn't add the paragraphs with the Cesarani review. However, if editors add reviews they need to make it clear what edition was reviewed. The author responded to feedback about the first edition, and updated subsequent editions with additional supporting evidence. That's why I mentioned the critiques of the 2001 first edition "can provide insight, but are outdated." JJMM (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I did add the David Cesarani review. I thought it was a pretty good one, both agreeing with the case Black made and disagreeing.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

-

and this article:

Was IBM good for the Jews?, Los Angeles Times, Book Review of 1st Edition, Saul Friedlnder, May 20, 2001.

' .  .  .  The author convincingly shows the relentless efforts made by IBM to maximize profit by selling its machines and its punch cards to a country whose criminal record would soon be widely recognized. Indeed, Black demonstrates with great precision that the godlike owner of the corporation, Thomas Watson, was impervious to the moral dimension of his dealings with Hitler's Germany and for years even had a soft spot for the Nazi regime. . .  '

' .  .  .  If the use of the IBM system had been the main explanation of this difference, it could not have led to the quasi-total deportation of the foreign Jews from France and to the escape of the majority of French Jewry. . .  '

' .  .  .  Black bases this central argument [that IBM used Geneva, Switzerland, as a base for illegal transactions] on two postwar articles of the New York Times, the first published Nov. 2, 1945, and the second Feb. 17, 1946. Does that suffice?'

Hitler's Willing Business Partners, The Atlantic, Jack Beatty, April 2001.

' .  .  .  I have read four other negative reviews of this book, and they all share what to me is a surprising feature: they are more critical of Edwin Black (with The Times pointing out that he has written for Redbook magazine and another reviewer that he is not a college graduate) who wrote a book, than of Thomas Watson, who made the damnable choices recorded in that book. . .  '


 * That is interesting! And I think the explanation is, if something is overhyped, people will kick at it.


 * And I think almost all of us can agree that a goal of an encyclopedia is to be right down the middle, to neither overstate nor understate. So, I think we should include the fact that a number of reviews state that Black makes valid points, but also overstates his case.  And we most probably should include some specifics.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * This Talk page is for editing discussions on Black's book according to Wikipedia policies. Please re-read what comprises neutral point of view, in particular the sections on WP:UNDUE-Due and Undue Weight (especially WP:BALASP-Balancing Aspects), WP:BESTSOURCES-Good Research, and WP:BALANCE-Balance.


 * The best, most reputable, most significant, authoritative sources available for Black's book would ideally be reviews of the 2002 and 2012 updated editions of his book. Given those aren't as readily available as reviews of the 2001 1st edition, editors need to be careful not to give undue weight to the 2001 reviews. Even though there were more reviews published of the 2001 book, too many examples of the 2001 book can give undue credence to critiques of an outdated edition. The research/documentation in the 2001 edition isn't current, and therefore is not as relevant. If editors cite reviews of the 2001 book that state Black overstated his case, please make sure to state clearly the reviews are of the 1st edition, and try to balance that out with a review of the 2002 or 2012 edition that are based on Black's additional research and revisions.


 * @FriendlyRiverOtter - Go ahead and make the changes you think are best. The way you can do what you are proposing while adhering to Wikipedia policies, is to add something like the following (after the 2001 Cesarini review and before any critiques of the 2002 paperback edition):
 * "A number of other reviews of the 2001 first edition stated that Black made valid points, but that he also overstated his case." Then add references/citations for any 2001 reviews you found that clearly stated that. You don't need to quote every single review. Please format those references the way other references have been formatted using the Cite News template. For example, instead of:
 * Hitler's Willing Business Partners, The Atlantic, Jack Beatty, April 2001. you would format that as:


 * If you don't feel comfortable using the cite news template, then add the references as you know how and I'll fix them later when I have time (the template is easy to use, standardizes citations, makes references clearer to readers, and helps make editing easier for future editors). -JJMM (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * One more note about references/citations: check to make sure the reference hasn't already been added. For example, the Beatty article in The Atlantic had already been cited and formatted using the Cite News template. -JJMM (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree about the different editions and will endeavor to make it clear which edition I'm talking about. However, I disagree about the fancy reference method.  For starters, why are we throwing two dates at our readers?  Yes, we make it easier for fellow editors.  But we make it less clear for our readers.  Many of our readers quickly skim and we should readily embrace that fact.  FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:55, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It is standard practice on Wikipedia to use one citation method or style throughout an article, similar to how one citation method or style is used for research papers and journal articles (MLA, APA, Chicago, etc.). The reference templates are neither encouraged or discouraged on Wikipedia, but once a certain reference format has been used for an article it shouldn't be switched. The Wikipedia reference templates are an easy way to adhere to one method/style, and they're used to format references/citations in a consistent way. I agree with you about the additional date created by "accessdate," but I usually add it so other readers/editors know when a link for an online source was last checked as a reference. It's not mandatory. The reference templates are used widely on Wikipedia - if you don't like them, it would be better to discuss that elsewhere. -JJMM (talk) 06:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The new section "First Edition makes valid points, but overstates at times?" is still too heavily weighted towards reviews of the 2001 first edition in terms of the overall critical response, due to the length of text in that section. It could use editing down - for example, paraphrasing rather than relying so heavily on quotes. Editors need to shorten section and/or add mentions of later reviews to provide neutral point of view. See my concerns above. -JJMM (talk) 07:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * We should more fully discuss the Holocaust in Holland as compared with France. This seems to be a big deal in reviews.  I think we should definitely include the issue, as Black does in his book, that Holland had an energetic bureaucrat whereas France had a moral hero who intentionally slowed down the Nazis at risk of his life, and in fact, ended up losing his life.


 * If you and I both assume the premise that the article is balanced as it is, then yes, any addition will make it unbalanced. But I don't think we necessarily accept this premise.  The article as it now stands is not even necessarily correct in its factual assertions.  Please see the next section in which our lead used to say that the Polish subsidiary controlled the New York office!  I corrected this as you know.  But we should not assume that this is the only flat-out mistake in our article.


 * As we get more reviews, in time we probably should have a separate section or subsection for the 2001, 2002, and 2011 editions. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree Beatty's quote needs to be expanded (the quote as it was and the citation to allow readers to check/read the full article sufficed), but I will leave it in the hope that future editors will tackle the issue of the 2001, 2002, and 2012 editions. As a reminder:
 * • "Criticisms...about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic."
 * • "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance."


 * This means not just balance in referencing or quoting from a particular review, but balance in the overall treatment of the reviews in relation to each other and the book. As it is there is undue weight given to the 2001 reviews in the Critical Response section due to the higher word count given to the 2001 reviews. Hopefully other editors can help rectify this in order to bring more balance and neutral point of view to the article. -JJMM (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I think we probably have more overlap and agreement than not. I'm seeing that the big issue is that we only have about five reviews of the 2001 edition and a grand total of just two reviews for the 2002 edition (UK's The Guardian and CBS News). FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Our lead currently mistates who controlled Polish subsidiary
Currently we say: "between IBM's United States headquarters, which was controlled by a Polish subsidiary, . . . "

I think it's the other way around! U.S. headquarters was controlling the Polish subsidiary. And I went ahead and corrected this mistake. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The business of making the trains to Auschwitz run on time, SFGate, Editorial, Edwin Black, May 19, 2002:


 * "The company's custom-tailored technology was provided directly through a new special wartime Polish subsidiary reporting to IBM New York."


 * Thank you for catching that! JJMM (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. :-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

a vandal may have actually done us a favor
On September 28, 2017, someone wrote: "Nazi's didn't have computers." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IBM_and_the_Holocaust&diff=802747361&oldid=802706189

Other people might wonder about this very thing. Our lead currently states " . . which IBM's technology helped facilitate Nazi genocide through generation and tabulation of punch cards . . " And it doesn't get more detailed in the body of our article, not really, some history, but not more details.

And this is Edwin Black's central thesis -- that IBM significantly speeded up the Nazi Holocaust. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Book reviews in major newspapers are solid secondary sources.
Identifying reliable sources 2 Some types of sources 2.1 Scholarship


 * "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible.  For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper.  .  .  .  "

-

And for a serious nonfiction book, book reviews in major newspapers such as the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times are secondary sources. Our article currently only has about a half dozen actual book reviews, with two of them appearing to be reviews of the 2002 revised edition.

And for such serious charges against what is now a major corporation, yes, we need more. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Issue of IBM's Polish Subsidiary

 * ' .  .  .  Edwin Black, whose book IBM and the Holocaust was published in hardback last year, says new evidence set out in the paperback version shows that executives at the firm's New York headquarters directly controlled a Polish subsidiary which leased punch-card machines used to "calculate exactly how many Jews should be emptied out of the ghettos each day" and to transport them efficiently on railways leading to the camps.  .  .  '


 * ' .  .  .  The paperback provides the first evidence that the company's dealings with the Nazis were controlled from its New York headquarters throughout the second world war.  .  .  '

I went ahead and added a new section in our article on this topic, using two references. As always, I'd like to have more. If this topic interests you, please consider helping out with some of the research. Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

searching for additional references
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1010074/


 * I think our goal is a variety of references. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Book Cover
The cover reverted over this was NOT 2001 first edition but 2002 second edition-- so this is the actual corrected cover to the latest NOT the 2001 first edition but 2002 second edition. Preference is for main publisher. This is the most recent and updated edition published by Dialog Press, the most dominant of the many publishers for the past 10-15 years. Fairlysimple (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Inflation
A few paragraphs in I can find the following calculation for 1911:

The next year, Hollerith sold his American business to industrialist Charles Flint (1850–1934) for US$1.41 million (equivalent to $3.92 billion in 2020).

Later on:

in October 1933 and the company ramping up its investment in its German subsidiary from 400,000 to 7,000,000 Reichsmark—about $1 million (equivalent to $20 million in 2020).

So in 1911 $1.41 million is $3.92 billion in 2020 and 22 years later $1 million is $20 million in 2020. The ~4 billion seems a little bit steep? Online inflation calculators give me ca. 39.7 million USD in 2020 for the 1.41 million. I don't want to edit since I'm not sure if I'm overlooking something here but the numbers don't add up IMHO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:8109:bd40:43d8:922b:34ff:fea3:4fb6 (talk) 15:47, September 23, 2021 (UTC)


 * Wow, good catch. I had originally added that inflation calculation along with two extra zeroes. I looked at it immediately when you posted your comment, and then another time in later weeks because that majorly stuck in my craw, and I was thinking I'd either escalate it to the template experts or remove it. But I finally found that darn typo today. I was blind to a zero. Then to a another one. Okay, $1.41m to $39.2m is right, and is in line with other online inflation calculators even though they start at only 1913. — Smuckola(talk) 19:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for changing it. For future reference I used https://westegg.com/inflation/ for the calculation which goes back to 1800. No clue how correct it is. 2A02:8109:BD40:43D8:922B:34FF:FEA3:4FB6 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)