Talk:Warsaw concentration camp

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Warsaw Ghetto.png


 * The nomination has been cancelled. SilkTork (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Request for translation help
''Note: This entire section was originally a discussion conducted on User talk:Deborahjay between June 25 and June 27, 2022. It belongs here on the article page.''

This video features an interview with Gideon Greif, a historian of the Holocaust, but I don't know Hebrew. Based on your knowledge of the language, does the historian say that the Warsaw concentration camp narrative about 200K dead Poles is "fake history" or something similar; if not, what is the descriptor he uses for that story? Unfortunately, Google speech-to-text recognition did not really work out, and without the knowledge of the language, I seem to have no other option. Thanks in advance for the help. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Szmenderowiecki if you don’t know Hebrew how did you know what that source say, who is being interviewed and why did you use it to source the text ? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  20:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The source's inclusion is longstanding and can be tracked to this revision by, October 2019; Piotrus has briefly removed the source as "non-English" and then put the "citation needed" template on Greif. Also, even with the rubbish translation, it was fairly evident that Gideon Greif was critical of the Polish government (that led by the Law and Justice, to be exact). So the question is what exactly he said. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * But how do you know who is in the video. The original entry had 2 sources, this one  then the video  booth were referenced to three people --> Havi Dreifuss, Jan Grabowski and Gideon Greif. How do you know it is Greif in the video not Dreifuss? -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  21:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The speech recognition software is not as dumb as not being able to recognise "Havi Dreifuss" from "Gideon Greif", come on. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is the diff where you, on November 14, 2021, reinstated the Hebrew video as a source next to the Gideon Greif. So you didn't understand what the video actually says because you don't speak Hebrew but you entered the source anyway. You used speech recognition software and you only identify that this is Gideon Greif talking on the video. Correct? Please confirm or elaborate further. -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  22:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I reverted Piotrus (or rather, reinstated from the old version of the article I was basing on, together with the Polish version of the article, which was the basis of expansion by translation), because the only reason he proposed for deleting the video was because it was in Hebrew - he did not assert any problems with that video other than he couldn't understand it. I trusted whoever first introduced that video that the inclusion was correct (I now checked that it was - please explain yourself). Nothing sinister. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Szmenderowiecki Your edit wasn't a revert. You constructed your own modification using some material from prior versions, and some that it looks to me Polish Wikipedia translation. You recorded in your edit summary --> Quote:
 * Expanded extermination camp section, omitting the disputed footnote + 2 sources from Zezza, one from some Hungarian historians, a book on the Warsaw uprising (Frantic 7), a book on the post-truth history (History in a Post-Truth world) mentioning the bogus plaques on KL Warschau
 * You are fully responsible for that edit and the sources you used. That's it from me here. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  20:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Deborahjay - Direct link to the above conversation is used in this AE report. Please don't archive for now. Thank you. -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  08:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC) -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2024
Change conspiracy theory to theory and add clarification that 200’000 is the largest estimate given for gas chamber deaths, as well as adding different sources for the historiography surrounding the camp, such as Norman Davies’ Rising ’44 discussion and so forth.

The tone of this part is uncharacteristically and unnecessarily hostile and apparently reflects an editing conflict in which a bellicose accusation is implicitly made against another side, attempting to make the other ‘side’ as unacceptable as possible.

People should be extra careful when they feel the need to do so, especially when they have the power to do so, to make sure they’re not taking advantage of it.

This doesn’t require one to even change the overall conclusion.

The point is, if one is making the claim that a claim isn’t made with proper basis, one should adhere to a higher standard. One should try to be charitable towards others and their attempts if one can. I believe that there is a measure of unbridled hostility towards others here, which is very dangerous when given power. It seems like its goal is to get a “win” and attempt to discredit others, which is a temptation people should avoid if possible.

The idea that it is a “conspiracy theory” is somewhat spurious, no “conspiracy” is stated which would be required for it.

The highest claim for dead at a subcamp was 200’000 total.

The post, given discourse around it seems ideologically hostile. I’ve seen people even call it a “hoax” (!) which is incredibly disrespectful.

London Review of Books is the only source given.

Norman Davies noted discourse around the damp in Rising ’44.

https://x.com/Pusher555/status/1124039866512289793/photo/3

The language is definitely bellicose or hostile, treating the person as an enemy not even someone wrong. That does not fit the bar for discourse that this demands. 2A02:A310:E23F:400:8C39:3F2B:51BC:9D42 (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * X.com? Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: X/Twitter is not a reliable source. (WP:TWITTER).   [[User:CanonNi ]]  (talk • contribs) 04:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)