Talk:Ivanhorod Einsatzgruppen photograph

Senor Freebee changes
Senor Freebee recently inserted the following claim into the lede of this article (bold text inserted):


 * In the 1960s, it was alleged that the image was a Communist forgery, but that explanation was strongly refuted by the German soldier in the photograph. Previously, the sentance ended ... but that explanation has not been widely accepted.

This assertion is based on the following quote from this newspaper article.


 * Then, mercifully, up popped a former member of Hitler's Einsatzgruppen, the "special action" squads used to murder a million Jews in Ukraine. The soldier in the picture is wearing German Einsatzgruppen uniform, he said, and holding the usual Einsatzgruppen rifle. What more proof do you need? Years later, an exhibition of German atrocity photographs in Eastern Europe was put on in Dresden where an old man stared at the pictures for a long time. Then he began to cry. And as he rushed from the exhibition hall, he shouted: "It's me...It's me."

I note that: I invite you to self-revert per BRD and justify your changes. You have accused me of Holocaust denial "giving undue weight to what appears to be Holocaust denial", with no evidence. (My userpage lists several GA-class articles that I have written on Holocaust topics). Catrìona (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Fisk does not claim that the man was in fact in the photograph—just that he identified himself as such.
 * 2) The incident is not mentioned in other sources.
 * Your false claim that I accused you of Holocaust denial is not helpful, neither is your edit warring, and reinforcement of material that is not supported by the sources. Do you intend to be constructive here, and do you retract that false claim?--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I've quoted your exact words above. As for WP:UNDUE, the lede is intended to summarize the body. Three arguments that the photo is genuine are presented in the article, and it is probably inappropriate to repeat the one that is given the least weight in sources (Struk's book is more reliable than a nonspecialist journalist, and the other argument is backed up by two sources). Again, Fisk does not claim that the old man was actually present in the photograph, only that the incident occurred. Catrìona (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say that it would be best (unless other sources can be found) to say "who identified himself as the solder".Slatersteven (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The old man's reaction doesn't warrant inclusion in the lead unless some good sources surface that say he was literally, factually identifying himself as the soldier depicted in the photo. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So you're refusing to retract your false claim about me accusing you of Holocaust denial? If you're utterly unwilling to address the reality of the discussion that was had in your unilaterally instigated edit war, then this matter is sorted. You are not a reasonable person, who is willing to admit that they made a false accusation, let alone that their arguments (that are unsupported by source material) might be unfounded.--Senor Freebie (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Can we please delete this page.
 * This image is fake. You can clearly see it's fake by the faint outline around the woman. In general the only real Einsatzgruppen photos are when there's mass executions, because the Nazis would frame these as legitimate eg partisans and so on. There are many examples of more obvious fakes besides.
 * The reason I mention this is because very soon AI will declare this is a fake and people will doubt the entire Holocaust. To be clear I don't deny the Holocaust, my family was annihilated by the Nazis, I have no reason to doubt it but have looked into it anyway. This unfortunately is carried-over Soviet propaganda.
 * I am hoping this page can be silently deleted.
 * Many thanks Zagreus99 (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The claim of the paper
The rag that made the claim is certainly more than a right-wing one. It is a far-right extremist paper, listed as such in Verfassungsschutz(domestic security agency) documenets as being far-right extremist, amongst other things, even in 2017 and plenty more sources for that around as well of course. Being called a mere right-wing paper is rather imprecise given the overwhelming evidence that it is a far-right extremist rag. 91.248.65.42 (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like it's a great paper to read for dissidents if it's being attacked like this by the system. 2601:8C:4500:4680:A8CF:7434:B6CF:C2F7 (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That's faulty thinking. If a lot of people claim human excrements smell bad, that's not an indication of a conspiracy. Shit does smell bad, and neonazi papers are deranged. The andf (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Weapon aimed by fully visible soldier ?
The weapon that the fully visible soldier is aiming in the photograph is of some importance, since it formed part of the (refuted) argument that the photograph is a forgery. Can the make and model of this weapon be accurately identified? Lklundin (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Twitter should not used as a source here
Re:. Per WP:TWITTER, we should not use such sources here. Additionally, POLANDRS comes to mind too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Waitman Wade Beorn is an expert on the Holocaust in Eastern Europe. If I were going to remove one source as dodgy it would be Fisk's editorial, since he is not an expert on the Holocaust and fails SPS. I think Beorn qualifies as a subject matter expert per WP:SPS.
 * This article was written before POLANDRS, obviously. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But the Twitter sources was added after we have an emerging consensus to use better sources. I don't see what the Twitter source adds here, except that it lowers the standard for citing sources in this topic area. Let Beorn publish this claim / comment in a peer reviewed source, and then we can add it here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Seriously? There isn't any reason why Beorn, or anyone else, would publish a paper about this picture. There is little known about it and unlikely to have more uncovered. The historical importance is not that great. Furthermore, POLANDRS does not apply because the photograph was taken in Ukraine, not Poland, nothing about Beorn's quoted statement relates to Holocaust in Poland. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If he won't publish in a RS, then his social media post doesn't belong here, per quoted policies RS/TWITTER. POLANDRS is just icing on the cake here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If he won't publish in a RS, then his social media post doesn't belong here, per quoted policies RS/TWITTER. POLANDRS is just icing on the cake here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)