Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Very biased information...

Honestly not sure what to say here. The numbers and information here are so utterly biased, I'm just about speechless. Here's a link, some of you might find interesting.

http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/Lucaire.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellomarius (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any specific issues? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to Add Information on SS Officers & Guards: Personnel, Lifestyle, etc...

This is a well written article but I think it is missing relevant summary information on the Germans who ran and guarded the camp. There are sporadic references to individuals (Mengele, Höss, etc...)but missing is information in more general terms about the officers and guards, how they were chosen, their backgrounds, ranks, and lifestyle. I have 3 or 4 books available I can access and quote from and there are also good sources online such as http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/ssalbum/?content=1 (which shows the German overseers enjoyed parties and a lively social life in their own nearby retreat) I would like to write a brief few sentences about the Germans in charge at Auschwitz and how they lived with direct cites for each sentence I write. It is highly instructive to review there position because it presents such an opposing contrast to the story of the prisoners. Does anyone object or have thoughts/suggestions about this? Leidseplein (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional information

Some additional information regarding THE FIRST ALLIED AERIAL RECONNAISSANCE OVER AUSCHWITZ DURING WORLD WAR II can be found here.. This organisation is fairly reputable and generally contains good (although sometimes Primary) information. Posted in the interests of editors working on this article. Farawayman (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Source for claim of Nazi destruction of gas chambers?

Under the heading "Evacuation, death marches and liberation" it states "The last selection took place on October 30, 1944. The next month, Heinrich Himmler ordered the crematoria destroyed before the Red Army reached the camp. The gas chambers of Birkenau were blown up by the SS in January 1945 in an attempt to hide the German crimes from the advancing Soviet troops." I'd like to see a primary source for this; none is provided. In looking around the web for such sources, I found a bewildering variety of narratives. For example, the Jewish Virtual Library website states "In October 1944, the Sonderkommando crew Crematoria IV revolted and destroyed the crematoria." The website for the US Holocaust Museum states "Gassing operations continued, however, until November 1944, at which time the SS, on orders from Himmler, disabled the gas chambers that still functioned. The SS destroyed the remaining gassing installations as Soviet forces approached in January 1945." (The phrase "disabled the gas chambers" strikes me as rather odd.) The website for The Holocaust: Lest We Forget states "When the Soviets entered Auschwitz I [on Jan. 27, 1945] the camp was virtually undamaged." All of these sites are within the orthodoxy of Holocaust memorial histories, yet they all disagree about what facilities were destroyed, and when. Nor do any of them reference primary sources. Can anyone provide a reference for the assertion that the crematoria were demolished by the Nazis and, if so, when? Thanks. Bricology (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Rees, Laurence (2005). Auschwitz: The Nazis & the Final Solutiuon. Random House. p. 326. ISBN 9780563522966. - confirms that the chambers were destroyed by the Nazi's in January 1945. Rees is considered to be one of the definitive references for Auschwitz. Added cite to article. Farawayman (talk) 04:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.207.117.119, 2 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

I wanted to say that Holocaust Remeberance Day is April 23 even though they got freed in Januarary 68.207.117.119 (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

So International Holocaust Remembrance Day is incorrect? Source, please? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the anon IP refers to Yom HaShoah, which isn't the same as the International Remembrance Day, and which isn't the same day every year in the Gregorian calendar. More here. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Wooden barracks are reconstructions?

Referring to this recent edit [1], is it correct to say that all the wooden barracks at Birkenau today are reconstructions? The photograph on the right was taken by me in 2005. Whilst the barrack nearest the camera has clearly been restored, the ones behind look quite dilapidated and are, I assume, original.

Incidentally, I think the article needs to say more about under what circumstances the majority of the wooden barracks were lost. I believe some were dismantled for re-use elsewhere, e.g. Gross-Rosen concentration camp. I have seen an old photograph showing some of the barracks at Birkenau on fire, but did this occur before or after liberation? –Signalhead ^< T > 21:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Auschwitz, 1270 to the Present by Debórah Dwork and Robert Jan van Pelt, most of the wooden barracks of Birkenau were removed to shelter construction workers in Warsaw after the war. 74.72.250.89 (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Serial Number Tattoos at Auschwitz?

Is the subject of tattooing discussed in any of these articles? (I can't find it). Auschwitz was the only camp that used tattooing, and about 200,000 tattoos, in various systems, were tattooed on prisoners: Use of serial number tattoos at AuschwitzJimhoward72 (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Identification in Nazi camps --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Heissmeyers' pseudoscientific medical experiments

Wikiditm (talk · contribs), notwithstanding my addition of three reliable sources stating that Heissmeyers' medical experiments were pseudoscientific, the fact is that his experiments on curing tuberculosis by injecting children with tuberculosis bacilli were based on purely pseudoscientific homeopathic notions that had already been disproved before he carried out these experiments. Can you explain on what basis you object to the statement that Heissmeyers' medical experiments were pseudoscientific? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I was objecting because no evidence was up supporting to the word at the time and it seemed like an inclusion based on emphasising negativity rather than based on accuracy (akin to something like "Heissmeyers' racist, paedophilic medical experiments"). I was not aware of the fact his experiments were based on homeopathic concepts, and don't have the sources given to hand at the moment, but if they do show that, then yes the wording is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiditm (talk • contribs)

the third door:

re: the slight inaccuracy in the made for TV movie with the unforgettable shots of the train entering through the massive arch, ending with a chunky officer wielding his thumb towards either a right-hand door for the work-capable, or a left-hand door for the condemned. I have encountered many unrepeatable instances, I am here now just to say that there was a third door. ~ Betaclamp (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Vernichtungslager

Why is Auschwitz II-Birkenau called a "Vernichtungslager" in this article? 92.39.39.177 (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably has something to do with the million or so Jews, Poles, and Roma who were exterminated there. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The article has outdated info about the sign theft in 2009

The guy responsible for the theft did not plan on financing anything but his own financial situation. Run this through babelfish, google translate or similar: http://www.politikerbloggen.se/2010/01/08/25345/

Appears I cannot make an edit myself without an account, maybe that's for the better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.107.143.107 (talk) 18:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is an AP article of Dec 30, 2010 with more details ablut the sentence.[2] Andreas  ^(T) 19:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Here is a raw Google translation of http://www.politikerbloggen.se/2010/01/08/25345/ , which is in Swedish:

---

DISCLOSURE: Threats to Reinfeldt, and parliament was a hoax staged by ex-Nazi

hotbluff Bluff. UPDATED. On Christmas Eve, confirmed Patrick Peter of the security police (picture left) that they have taken action in response to information indicating that terrorist attacks were planned against the Swedish parliament and against Fredrik Reinfeldt's house. Politicians blog can today reveal that it was all a hoax - orchestrated by the former Nazi leader Hogstrom (pictured right). As recently as last summer appointed a Stockholm district court trustee and regent for Hogstrom. The guardian tells politicians to blog Hogstrom been paid by the Times for the false information - which is refuted by certain of the newspaper's chief editor Jan Helin.

On December 23, Aftonbladet published a major unresolved article which revealed that a secret group planned an attack on parliament and Fredrik Reinfeldt's house.

But the whole thing was a scam, now state sources for Politicians blog. A hoax invented by the former Nazi leader Hogstrom, today on suspicion of having ordered the theft of Auschwitz sign saying "Arbeit macht frei". This also says Hogstrom good man and guardians: The alleged militant Nazi group does not exist. There are no weapons and no plans to attack.

Still confirmed SAPO press secretary Patrick Peter (pictured left) the data on Christmas Eve: - We know the details of the alleged attack plans for a long time. We have taken measures, he said, among other things.

That was the statement that caused the data quickly spread to other media and came to worry both MPs and their relatives.

The Aftonbladet article December 23 interviewed Hogstrom anonymously. Hogstrom was previously leader of the Nazi movement NSF, but left it in 1999 after a highly acclaimed examination of the four national newspapers.

According to Aftonbladet, Hogstrom would be one of the people in the secret terrorist group that planned to strike at the parliament and to Fredrik Reinfeldt's house. The newspaper also wrote that the group would have access to weapons.

Hogstrom interviewed in the newspaper and said, inter alia: - The classic Nazi organizations is outdated. They consist of a collection of unintelligent people who can not achieve anything. I have more faith in people who are ready to act, I'm more Baader Meinhof inspired.

The article did not show Hogstrom as recently as last year was a trustee and guardian. Politicians Blog, today announce that Hogstrom good man named Lars-Göran Wahlström and is very famous in Nazi circles. Wahl is a multimillionaire and owner including several apartments in central Stockholm. He also owns the company Granholm's properties AB, which Hogstrom previously served as a director.

Politicians Blog spoke on Friday with Lars-Göran Wahlström, which today has Hogstrom as inherent in one of his apartments. Wahlstrom says the High current view with the theft of Auschwitz The sign in fact was to become famous or infamous. - He wanted to sell interviews to the media. If you get really famous so one can make money on it eventually. And Anders thought this would be the crime of the century and that the media would be on the line.

According to Lars-Göran Wahlström Hogstrom might fool a Pole to carry out the theft in Poland. But no buyers for the stolen plate was, in fact, never. - He has no contacts like that and he is notorious in Nazi circles today. He has no contacts whatsoever.

Wahlstrom says Hogstrom was well paid by the Times for the story of the terrorist group that planned attacks against the parliament and Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt. - He has a need to appear and make themselves extraordinary. But he prepares no coups d'etat and he has no contacts with the military or what is now alleged, "says his good husband and guardian, Lars-Göran Wahlström. - It is tragic that he now disgraces itself even though I tried to avert it.

Politics blog has repeatedly tried to reach Hogstrom for comment, but so far without result.

UPDATE: Aftonbladet editor Jan Helin said on Friday afternoon for Politicians blog that Hogstrom not received a dime in payment of the magazine.

---

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Do correct the 3rd paragraph of the lead

The 3rd par. of the lead (intro) is badly written. I, unregistered, suggest the following after a few changes:

Auschwitz II-Birkenau was designated by Heinrich Himmler, the Third Reich's Reichsführer and Minister of the Interior, as the place of the "final solution of the Jewish question in Europe". From spring 1942 until the fall of 1944, transport trains delivered mostly Jews to the camp's gas chambers from all over Nazi-occupied Europe. Rudolf Höss, the camp's first commandant, initially testified after the war that 1.1 million people was exterminated, than at the Nuremberg Trials, under duress from the British pressured by Stalin, that up to three million people had died there (2.5 million exterminated, and 500,000 from disease and starvation), a figure since revised to 1.1 million , around 90 percent of them Jews. Others deported to Auschwitz included 150,000 Poles, 23,000 Roma and Sinti, 15,000 Soviet prisoners of war, and tens of thousands of people of diverse nationalities. Those not killed in the gas chambers died of starvation, forced labor, lack of disease control, individual executions, and medical experiments.

--24.44.108.229 (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Auschwitz concentration camp

why were people in this camp? what was the cause? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.58.68.202 (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

They were mostly put in the camp because they were Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The question is not answered. Why did Nazis put the Jews in concentration camps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.146.140.2 (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Read the articles about Nazism and race and Racial policy of Nazi Germany.  Andreas  ^(T) 12:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.146.11.66, 18 April 2011

article 'Auschwitz concentration camp' - section 1.2 'Auschwitz 1'. there is a simple, minor grammatical error.

"From 1940 to 1941 17 000 Polish and Jewish residents from the western districts of Oświęcim town, from places adjacent to Auschwitz Concentration Camp was expelled."

please change 'was' to 'were'

thank you.

68.146.11.66 (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request, 23 April 2011

article 'Auschwitz concentration camp' - Introduction, location map. In my opinion the map of contemporary Poland is probably a wrong reference ("Location of Auschwitz in contemporary Poland"). As Auchwitz area was located in Germany between 1939-45, this map should be replaced by a historic map of Germany with 1939-45 borders. The map of German Reich 1939-45 would be a relevant reference to the subject matter of this article.

Compare: neither Dachau nor Mauthausen articles in Wikipedia have maps of contemporary Austria or Germany. Actually, there are no maps at all, only in town descriptions: Mauthausen concentration camp, Dachau concentration camp . 87.97.100.78 (talk) 13:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC) thank you.

Image alt text

Greetings. This article doesn't have any alt text (WP:ALT). I'll check back in a few months to be sure that someone has added it (and do it if need be, though I am no expert). Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Images

For an article that's been stable for a relatively long period of time does anybody bother to ask others what they think before altering the format of the page? It's a major article I think it warrants consensus isn't that the way it's supposed to work or is that just a term of convenience?

We have a Manual of Style, in which a sandwich of images is discouraged, so gathering of consensus has already been done. I applaud the changes made by User:Anthony Appleyard: thanks for solving a difficult layout problem. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I was going to respond but I'm fresh out of Xanax and I don't want to risk being "Uncivil". So I'll wait until I get some type of pharmaceutical aid. This is what the article looked like previously[3] So awesome 7mike5000 (talk) 07:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Theme park

In 2009, a survey found 15% of U.K. children ages 9-15 believed Auschwitz is a World War Two-based theme park.(See: "U.K. Kids Think Auschwitz Is Theme Park")

Petey Parrot (talk) 11:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

More precisely, on a multiple choice quiz, 15% of kids that age said "piss off" to the quiz and just checked whatever they pleased. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Copy-edit of Hoss quotes

The article on Rudolf Hoess is loaded with quotes, many of which would help to explain stuff here. Hoess's testimony provides some of the most detailed and reliable insight we have into the operation of Auschwitz. Perhaps we should discuss which quotes should be added?Hoops gza (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Killed 1.1 million vs Killed 1.4 million? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.61.213 (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hoess statements reliable? Historians who have had the opportunity to study the notes or 'statement' written by Hoess have commented that the notes are virtual gibberish with Hoess appearing to be either drunk or drugged when he wrote them down. British Military Police who were holding Hoess at the time are said to have subjected him to none stop sleep deprivation. Johnwrd (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It's "non-stop", not "none stop". –Signalhead ^< T > 18:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Captions of pictures

Please be more accurate with the captions of pictures which illustrate that article. For instance "Hungarian Jewish children and an elderly woman on the way to the gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau (1944)" (Chapter "Death toll"). How could we know that the people were "on the way to the gas chambers". Isn't it a bit speculative to add such details without more specific information, in particular the exact location of that scene into the camp? The genuine picture definition on the archives of Bild is "KZ_Auschwitz-Birkenau,_alte_Frau_und_Kinder.jpg‎" which means "KZ Auschwitz-Birkenau, Old woman and children". Please, cite the sources which allow the additions of details to the genuine caption.Grizouk (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

If you read the whole official description it states:

• German: Hier Kinder und eine alte Frau auf dem Wege in die Todesbaracke (Auschwitz-Birkenau).
• English translation: Here, children and an old woman on the way to the death barracks of Auschwitz-Birkenau.
• Wikipedia caption: Hungarian Jewish children and an elderly woman on the way to the gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau (1944), many children and elderly were murdered immediately after arrival and were never registered

How much more accurate is necessary? 7mike5000 (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Philosopitt, 12 September 2011

Under subheading Auschwitz I, please change "Some prisoners were made to spend the nights in "standing cells". These cells were about 1.5 m2 (16 sq ft)" to "Some prisoners were made to spend the nights in "standing cells". These cells were about 1.5 m2 (20 sq ft)".

Source: elementary mathematical arithmetic: 1 meter = 3 feet thus 1.5 meter = 4.5 feet ergo 1.5 m2 = 4.5ft x 4.5ft which = 20.25 f2 but we can drop the quarter foot among friends. (16 sq ft mathematically incorrect.)

Philosopitt (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: One meter is 3.2808399 feet, therefore one square meter is 10.76391 square feet (3.2808399²). 10.76391 square feet multiplied by 1.5 (the number of square meters) is 16.145865 square feet, and rounds down to 16. — Bility (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

B-class review: failed

Speedy fail: poor referencing (entire unreferenced paragraphs). I am disappointed that MILHIST allowed such a shoddy referencing to classify for a B-class. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Unesco title

My edit to remove Unesco's unofficial name (Auschwitz Birkenau German Nazi Concentration and Extermination Camp) despite good grounds was reverted, so I'm bringing up the subject here. On what grounds is it included? Neither the actual camp nor the modern-day museum used or use this title. In fact, it's not even a name; as I already pointed out, it's a descriptive subtitle used by Unesco on its site page, and also the only one to even use it. --Morgan Hauser (talk) 07:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The poster who reverted this edit and me have resolved this issue, with both agreeing that it should be removed. However, I'm going to wait for a couple of days before restoring, just to give somebody the opportunity to provide a compelling argument as to why it should be kept.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 10:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion to revisit split of article

I see from the archives that this was briefly discussed four years ago, but I would like to revisit the question of splitting this page into two articles: one on Auschwitz I, and one on Auschwitz II (Birkenau). My rationale for this proposal is as follows:

• These are physically distinct camps; they are not co-located, as is the case -- for example -- with Treblinka I and Treblinka II. They are near each other, true, but they could function somewhat independently. As I understand it, transports to Birkenau went directly to that camp and the victims were usually unloaded therein. Most perished without ever setting foot in Auschwitz I.
• The SS separated administration of Auschwitz from Birkenau and Monowitz; each camp had its own commandant for much of its history. Birkenau was commanded first by Fritz Hartjenstein, then by Josef Kramer. After this point, Birkenau and Auschwitz were reintegrated, but this was only because Birkenau's role as a death camp had reached an end. Although garrison offices were centered in Auschwitz I, Birkenau had its own command structure.
• Auschwitz I and Birkenau are easily distinguished operationally. The development of Auschwitz I is largely the story of a concentration and forced labor camp. Birkenau, by contrast, is a work camp that is transformed early into a death camp (like Dr van Pelt, I am uncomfortable with the phrase extermination camp). From this point, they play different roles in the Nazi state, even if they shared some classes of prisoners and saw some operational crossover.
• Finally, an argument based on existing practice: if Auschwitz III (Monowitz) warrants its own article, then Birkenau is at least as notable. For the reasons enumerated above, it is also equally distinct from Auschwitz I as is Monowitz (Monowitz's garrison, after all, was also located at Auschwitz I).

I recognize that it would be very difficult to separate this article. Some statements might apply to one new article, the other, or both, and some statements could be ambiguous. I understand that many people may also be thinking of Auschwitz II (Birkenau) when they speak of Auschwitz. To deal with that, a disambiguation statement like this might be helpful:

Auschwitz II (Birkenau) This article is about the death camp of Auschwitz II. For the concentration camp, please see Auschwitz I.

Auschwitz I This article is about the concentration camp of Auschwitz I. For the death camp, please see Auschwitz II (Birkenau).

Birkenau is a distinct installation, and I think that many people would see it that way, without unduly confusing those who had not distinguished them hitherto. I hope we can have a productive discussion about this idea. Sacxpert (talk) 06:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Some well-made points, worthy of careful consideration. Treblinka I and Treblinka II are not co-located however, but are physically separate sites; perhaps they should each have their own articles too. –Signalhead ^< T > 20:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The way I look at it, this article should remain as the useful overview/parent article of all elements of what is known as the Auschwitz camp. But one can certainly split sections when they get to long into their own, dedicated subarticles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"State of emergency" in Poland

Hello. I can't edit the article, so I write here. I live in Poland and for sure there was no state of emergency after the 2009 theft! The text in The Guardian is misleading, in my opinion it was supposed to mean general mobilisation of the police, which of course took place. The are also no other sources for this statement. Please remove the false information from the article. 93.105.253.231 (talk) 22:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 November 2011

Please delete the following sentence: "Such was the concern about its theft that Poland declared a state of emergency." I live in Poland and for sure there was no state of emergency declared after the 2009 theft! The text in The Guardian is misleading, in my opinion it was supposed to mean general mobilisation of the police, which of course took place. There are also no other sources for this statement, so please remove the false information from the article.

93.105.253.231 (talk) 13:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Partly done: I didn't remove the statement, as The Guardian is considered as a reliable source. But in any case I changed the text to something closer to what article said. I hope this helps, →Στc. 07:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 January 2012

I have found a very good article on Auschwitz, its history and contemporary politicks. Please add an article to referances and external links as it does help to understand the site complexity. Article on Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum http://www.jewish-guide.pl/sites/auschwitz-birkenau-museum

89.76.197.90 (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: It could only be an external link, since it wasn't used as a reference to write the article. As an external link, I think there may be conflict of interest problems, since the link is to a travel site which sells tours of the museum. Regards, Celestra (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Elie Weisel ???

Why "Elie Weisel" here? Even Wikipedia knows that the man's name is "Elie Wiesel", Auschwitz victim, Nobel price author. Please correct! 81.62.155.29 (talk) 10:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Left Vs. Right

The "Selection process and genocide" section states that "...incoming Jews were divided into those deemed able to work, who were sent to the right and admitted into the camp, and those who were sent to the left and immediately gassed.^[42]".

However, in chapter three of Night (a first-hand account of the Holocaust), Elie Wiesel (the author) recalls going through the left line to the barracks. He'd most likely remember accurately that he was in the left line, because of two main reasons I can find.

The first is that he saw babies being murdered in a crematory ahead of the line he was in; he thought he would have a similar fate. The second main reason I can identify is that here was the first time he questioned his faith in a god. Fearing death for the first time at Auschwitz and questioning one's religion for the first significant time seem like events monumental enough to make one remember which line he or she was in.

I personally would hold a first-hand account of the event to be more authoritative that Laurence Rees's 2005 account of the event, but am open to discussion.

98.127.90.88 (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Number of peope killed at Auschwitz Birkenau

If you look at the reference given (number 4) that website actually describes 1.3 million as the number of people deported to the camp. Obviously most, but not all, were subsequently murdered there. http://en.auschwitz.org/h/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=13&limit=1&limitstart=1 The home page of that website gives those killed at the camp as 'more than 1.1 million'. I think this is an important number to get right, does anyone have other sources that help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.238.1.135 (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

And of course a large number of the dead died from disease and overwork - I think it is important to know how many were actually gassed, I have seen figures of c 600,000. 217.39.12.165 (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Children in the Holocaust concentration camp liberated by Red Army.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Children in the Holocaust concentration camp liberated by Red Army.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Camp's sign

Important information from this article (The Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies - The University of Minnesota) should be added to the article as following:

"The memorial, too, has changed throughout the years. The plaques indicating that "4 million people" were killed at Auschwitz were removed in 1990. They were replaced with plaques stating the more accurate figure of “one and a half million.”"

• The sign before 1999
• The sign after 1999

It seems that 2.5 million dead Jews have came to life in 1999!--Liopaiopsm (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you really think changing a sign will bring dead Jews to life? And why would you assume those 2.5 million were Jews anyway - perhaps it was 2.5 million Christians who came to life!

The communist government made inflated claims for the numbers killed, which were finally corrected with the fall of that government. This had no impact on the overall estimates of the numbers of Jews killed, because historians never based their totals on these distorted figures. Nevertheless, this has become a standard trope of Holocaust denial. This is all discussed in the article already, at Auschwitz concentration camp#Death toll. In the future please read the article before suggesting changes. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hungarian Jewish children and an elderly woman on the way to the gas chambers of Auschwitz-Birkenau (1944). Many children and elderly were murdered immediately after arrival and were never registered.. THAT is simply nonsense. The sources are "Desmond Tutu, Simon Wiesenthal, Israel W. Charny: Encyclopedia of genocide p.300" and "Adam Bujak, Teresa Świebocka, Henryk Świebocki: Auschwitz: the residence of death p.1938 Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, 2003" which are totally unencyclopedic and pure propaganda.--Liopaiopsm (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Simply ridiculous! There is a group of people who want the article to stay as it is, at all costs!--Liopaiopsm (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Since when Simon Wiesenthal is a historian and an encyclopedic source?!!--Liopaiopsm (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The author of that specific article was actually the historian Alan L. Berger, an expert in Holocaust studies. The citation was mis-labeled, I've fixed it. He's a reliable source, as is the book it's from, Encyclopedia of Genocide. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"Them Jews"

In the third paragraph, there's a line which reads "a figure since revised to 1.3 million, around 90 percent of them Jews." "Them Jews" is a grammatical error which could be viewed as offensive; I'm not sure if this is vandalism or overlapping edits. Currently don't have the authority to edit semi-protected articles. Could someone review this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julesmazur (talk • contribs) 04:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not a grammatical error, but I have changed it to remove any doubt. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 June 2012

Change sentance from: From early 1942 until late 1944, transport trains delivered Jews to the camp's gas chambers from all over Nazi-occupied Europe.[2] to: From early 1942 until late 1944, transport trains delivered Jews to the camp's gas chambers from all over German-occupied Europe.[2]

As this hiperlink direct to a article that is titled German-occupied Europe not Nazi-occupied Europe VanDreed (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hierarchy of informations

"Arbeit macht frei" sign theft section is longer than Medical experiments one. Xx236 (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

broken link needs fixing

Under (Further Reading) the link (Auschwitz Jewish Center situated in the town of Oświęcim) needs to be linked to http://ajcf.org/ and not to http://www.ajcf.org/ I tried the link the first time and it didnt work and I tried the link the second time and it worked. This message is just a note that the link didn't work the first time I clicked it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.225.87 (talk) 02:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

confusion

"Auschwitz I served as the administrative center, and was the site of the deaths of roughly 70,000 people, mostly ethnic Poles and Soviet prisoners of war. Auschwitz II was an extermination camp or Vernichtungslager, the site of the deaths of at least 960,000 Jews, 75,000 Poles, and some 19,000 Roma. Auschwitz III-Monowitz served as a labor camp for the Buna-Werke factory of the IG Farben concern. "

Right there it's over 1.2 million, despite the part of the article that says, "1.1 million " deaths is the recent estimation. Obviously that is self-contradictory, and it must be higher.74.239.209.92 (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

pl:Auschwitz-Birkenau quotes Franciszek Piper and "more than 1.1 million" is a recent estimate.Xx236 (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

confusion

Under (Timeline of Auschwitz) on "June 20th, 1942" the Inmates "stole an SS staff car, a Steyr 220 belonging to Rudolf Höss".

If you go to the article pertaining to "Kazimierz Piechowski" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazimierz_Piechowski) who lead this breakout attempt, you will find: "Bendera arrived in a Steyr 220 sedan (saloon) car belonging to SS-Hauptsturmführer Paul Kreuzmann"

The car cant belong to both Rudolf Höss and Paul Kreuzmann; Please check the sources of both claims and correct accordingly! Pgs3238 (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction

In the article (Selection process and genocide) it is states, without citation, that Auschwitz II-Birkenau could gas and cremate up to 20,000 people a day. This is 833 people an hour! Even http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/augas.html states that the larger crematoriums could only handle ~1,440 in 24 hours. To deal with 20,000 corpses in 24 hours you'd need all 5 crematoriums burning 4,000 corpses a day. Obviously the numbers contradict other sources and even common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.68.71.191 (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Auschwitz. It is clear that at least 25-40,000 prisoners died in Auschwitz III, according to the page on Monowitz (Monowice).

Also, the article should make mention of SS Obergruppenfuehrer Hans Kammler, who is credited with expanding the camp's gas chambers.Valleyspring (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I also found this on Dr Capesius. trans from German. More on Dr Capesius, Auschwitz 'pharmacist.' 12.02.1944 Arrival in Auschwitz. (feb 1944.)

18.02.1944 Death of the senior pharmacist Dr. Krömer.

19.02.1944 Capesius placed in charge. 

09.11.1944 SS-Stubaf. Nov 09 1944 (the last murder by gas was Nov 24 or 25, 1944).

*This proves that this  Capesius was in charge of the pharmacy during the mass murder of the Hungarian Jews, during the summer of 1944. He would have been an expert on the use of zyklon b.

18.01.1945 Flight to Berlin to support SS Staf. Dr. Enno Lolling.

1945:
Commander of pharmacy in the KL-Mauthausen.Valleyspring (talk) 04:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Addition to timeline

Is it ok to add Petr Ginz to the timeline section? I think he is a notable enough victim to add. We know he was sent on one of the last transports to Auschwitz in late Sept. 1944. Thank you for your consideration--FeanorStar7 17:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A translation of 'Arbeit macht frei'

'Work frees' has the much broader sense of the original then 'work makes [you] free', as it is not just about 'you', but more philosophically about everything. --24.186.223.176 (talk) 06:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Photo in Gallery

The photo entitled "Entrance to Birkenau, 2006. Guard tower, two information boards seen on the left." does not show the entrance, but a gate inside of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. --Joerg 130 (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The gate on the photo is probably that one located here: [4]. (The photographer looking to the South - compare the buildings.) --Joerg 130 (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I corrected this myself now (I could not before, probably I was not accepted as a confirmed user). --Joerg 130 (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Lanzmann's "Shoah" not mentioned

I wonder why Claude Lanzmann's "Shoah" is not mentioned as a reference in the article. Could someone please add it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.23.103.132 (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You are the one wo knows how this reference refers to the article, so please add it yourself, or discuss the issue here and then add it. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. I would only suggest to firs register and get a user name.  Andreas  ^(T) 23:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Pool

I think there is a little bit unclarity about the pool in Auschwitz Stammlager. The sign at the pool in Auschwitz says that it was a fire brigade reservoir build in form of a swimming pool. Other sources including an older Wikipedia Articel I think (you can read this in the Archive 1) say that it was an swimming pool for the SS. This is really confusing.

And a description of the brothel I can't find neither.

--95.90.2.157 (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I remember the version of the fire brigade reservoir from my visits also. The pool is located at [5], inside of the fences. That would be a rather strange place for a swimming pool to be used by the SS. Nevertheless it might be used as a swimming pool additionally. Currently I'm wondering if the pool was build by the SS or if it origins from the earlier usage of the Stammlager area as barracks. --Joerg 130 (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I think there are also water reservoirs in Auschwitz Birkenau, that would explain the pool. But I don't know why the pool is looking like a swimming pool or what's the function of the swimming pool parts (diving board, starting blocks) were.--95.90.2.157 (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 April 2013

I submit that the following should be deleted from this Wikipedia page: "Yisrael Gutman writes that it was in the concentration camps that Hitler's concept of absolute power came to fruition. Primo Levi, who described his year in Auschwitz in If This Is a Man, wrote:

[N]ever has there existed a state that was really "totalitarian." ... Never has some form of reaction, a corrective of the total tyranny, been lacking, not even in the Third Reich or Stalin's Soviet Union: in both cases, public opinion, the magistrature, the foreign press, the churches, the feeling for justice and humanity that ten or twenty years of tyranny were not enough to eradicate, have to a greater or lesser extent acted as a brake. Only in the Lager [camp] was the restraint from below non-existent, and the power of these small satraps absolute.[9]"

Mr. Gutman's opinion is entirely subjective. Who gives a crap what he thinks? This excerpt does nothing but add personal opinion and bias to an article which is supposed to be strictly informative.

Thank you.

99.231.45.188 (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope. All opinions are by definition subjective. But opinions of some people are more relevant and noteworthy than those of others. And also insightful. The opinions of Israel Gutman, a Holocaust survivor, fall into that category. Also, I give a crap what he thinks.Volunteer Marek 18:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have closed this edit request on the grounds that the above comment indicates this proposal is controversial and has no consensus. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Germans established a camp of Auschwitz in 1940

Germans established a camp of Auschwitz in 1940, first to imprison Poles. Auschwitz II-Birkenau was established two years later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.205.123.167 (talk) 12:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Going for Good Article status

In the next few weeks, I'm hoping to bring this one to Good Article status as part of an article improvement drive for WikiProject Human rights. My first impression is that this is close to GA-quality already: it's well-sourced, the sources are high quality, it's a reasonable size (51 kb readable prose), and there's only a few minor cleanup tags. What do the regulars at this article think? Does anyone have any suggestion/comment for changes you'd like to see before this is nominated?

In the meantime, I'll give this a closer read and start doing some superficial clean-up work (repeat links, etc.). Thanks to all who have worked on this one before me, -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

So after considering this one for a bit, there's three sections in the article that seem to receive undue weight that I'd like to reduce if there are no objections.

• "Jewish Skeleton Collection" -- gets a tremendous amount of space for something that seems like a minor note
• "Arbeit macht frei" sign theft -- surely this can be summarized in a single paragraph; it certainly doesn't need twice as much space as Nazi medical experimentation
• "Israeli Air Force historic flight" -- again, an interesting event to note briefly, but it doesn't seem an event of such overwhelming importance in the camp's history that it needs more attention in the article than Rudolph Hoss, allied debates over whether to bomb the camp, the evacuation of the facility, etc.

I'll hold off on making any of these cuts for at least a day or two, though, in case others want to chime in. Other things I hope to work on in the next week or two include making the sourcing more thorough (some major points, like the Allied debate over whether to bomb the camp, still seem to be unsourced) and adding a paragraph or two about Auschwitz's historical legacy (Timothy Snyder's Bloodlands, for example, has some good material on how Auschwitz has become the stand-in for the larger Holocaust in popular imagination). Some sections also appear in need of better organization--Pilecki's infiltration and breakout are discussed in duplicate, for example, and the Birkenau revolt section seems confused and at times off-topic. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've reduced the three sections I noted above. The diffs are here. I also removed an image of the exterior of the medical experimentation building (this), as the article seems a bit overcrowded with them and IMHO this one didn't convey much to the reader. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I also removed a list of SS crematorium chiefs that was oddly placed in the Birkenau revolt section. I'll look for a better home for this tonight or tomorrow if I can also find a source for it that gives it a better context {diff here}. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Motor pool

The link in the article for motor pool should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.163.74 (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

List of material the article needs to cover

Structurally the article needs some work. We need to think about an overall organisational plan. None of my intra-library loans have arrived yet, but I have Steinbacher from the local collection, and it has given me some ideas for structure. Here's a list of topics that need to be covered: Please add to this list if there's something I have missed.

• History (a two- or three-paragraph chronology)
• Layout - subcamps - IG Farben - gypsy camp - family camps - "Canada" - "Mexico"
• Personnel - functionary prisoners - Sonderkommandos - Hoss and his family
• Daily life - diet - unsanitary conditions - prevalent diseases (Noma, typhus, typhoid)
• Medical experiments
• Methods of killing - gas chambers - crematoria - transports - selection
• Resistance - Sonderkommando rebellion - political resistance in the surrounding area
• Final days - death marches - liberation
• Trials
• Legacy -- Diannaa (talk) 02:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the organization here needs serious work. Your list looks fairly complete to me and I think would make a good structure; I added a bullet point for the camp's final days, but I don't have strong feelings about where this material should fit in. I just got Rees's book in the mail, which may give me some more ideas. I may try to start moving the article into a format like the above next week if you don't beat me to it (and if no one else objects). -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Would suggest we somehow merge medical experiments with selection and methods of killing. No seperate section. Also drop Hoss and family, this is about the victims I think exclusively. Get rid of trials. At a later stage we could merge it with a whole new "Legacy of A" piece, as the emergence of modern human rights/international standards of law re genocide, UN etc. Just thoughts. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

These don't have to be the section headers necessarily. That would kinda depend on how much material we think is important enough to include here in the main article. For example, for Hoss, a sentence or two would suffice. Same for the trials; we have already got a separate article so there's no need to focus on it here. Once we do the initial re-ordering things will start to gel. Khazar2, if your copy of Rees has the same ISBN that would be awesome. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I've started rewriting some of the more self-contained sections to improve quality/diversity of sourcing, but will hold off on making any serious structural changes for at least a few more days if others want to comment here. Obviously the rewrites I'm doing can be chopped and rearranged later if needed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Rees

The sources list two books by Rees, but there's only actually one; it was published under a different title in the UK. I will be combining all the Rees citations and we can check the pagination when the book arrives. The one I am expecting is ISBN 158648303X, Public Affairs 2005. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Darn, I've got the British one, I think. ISBN 0563522968. My pagination seems to be off by about 30-40 pp what's currently listed in the article, but at least the content of the few Rees citations I've looked up so far are correct. To keep this consistent, if I end up adding any information from Rees, I'll look up the sentences in the other copy via Amazon or Google Books. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Someone has our copy checked out, so I have it on hold, and will get it by 21 August if the current patron returns it on time. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Should we eliminate the Timeline section?

Should we eliminate the Timeline section? A lot of the material therein does not have any sources. The most pertinent information should already be present in the main narrative. Thoughts? -- Diannaa (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The main article well-sourced is all we need. I cannot see the timeline serving any critically constructive purpose. I would say remove. Irondome (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It looks good, but it is basically visual and graphic "incident bytes" if I can put it like that. If users wish a more compressed, less detailed overview of A, there are many exdellent other sites out there. It is unintentional dumbing down, and I fear it may divert some users from actually reading the article. Just thoughts. Cheers. Irondome (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it seems redundant for the reasons you both state, so I've boldly deleted it; if anybody disagrees, though, I'm happy to discuss further. (Diff here if someone needs to revert this later, and here for the references). -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the section from this article but, like it or not, a lot of readers would find something like that useful. Sometimes you want the in depth info and sometimes you're just looking up some quick facts. At the same time it takes up a lot of space. Given both these considerations, that's probably why it was collapsed. And at the end of the day any kind of graphic or "list" representation of a complex phenomenon inevitably involves some "dumbing down" (infoboxes! illustrative images! templates!). How about splitting it off into a separate article? Volunteer Marek 00:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd have no objection to putting it in a separate article. A link could be placed here in "See also" or in Diannaa's proposed "history" section at the start. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

It may have uses elsewhere, but I think it should be hived off for the moment till we figure out an appropriate place for it. It may be valuable to younger readers. I think it just represents a different approach. It has its own value, and the pics and incident choice is excellent. Irondome (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

A spin-off article is a good idea. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there not a junior WP concept being discussed? I saw it on one of the boards, couple weeks ago. A complex and long discussion it looked as to structure and approach. Unsure where to locate it now, but the timeline would be a great offering if it the discussed juniour concept gets going. Irondome (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The new article should be created at Timeline of Auschwitz Concentration Camp imo. I just want to confirm that no one has created it at a different title before I proceed. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and haven't created it yet. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

There is Timeline of Treblinka and a much abbrieviated timeline in the Grossaktion Warsaw article. There are probably others linked to other camps. Does the existence of other stand-alone Holocaust-related timelines affect our plan here? Irondome (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought the timeline was excellent and I'm very sorry it's gone. Yes, much of it was duplication, but was hidden and so only needed to be seen on request. I think a lot of care had gone into constructing it. The images, in particular, were not duplicates. You've also been extremely hasty - actually less than two hours from proposal to deletion. Other editors, who may be away at the moment, and have missed this, will be far more disappointed than me, I suspect. So I'd certainly support another article, except that I can see that then being proposed for a re-merge with this or even a deletion. Sorry to be negative here. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

In no way would I support a deletion of this actually excellently produced and well chosen T/L. It is true it does collapse, so is unobtrusive. I believe that all along here the issue at discussion has been information overload on an already vast piece of work. It has been a question of where it would be better placed, as a stand-alone; that has been my understanding of the discussion. If other eds weigh in, then a consensus will be reached. Its not a massive problem. Irondome (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry if you were offended, Martin. I tried to be clear in my comment above that my removal of the section was provisional and that I was open to further discussion; because I provided diffs above, the information can be restored in literally seconds if there's later consensus that it belongs. As for haste, I want to note that I've been posting to this talk page for weeks trying to start conversation about revisions with absolutely no response; I don't know how many watchers this actually has, and so I'm taking a bit more of a WP:BRD approach in revisions now. On the timeline issue, there seems to be a clear consensus in the early response, but if you see me making a change in the future that you disagree with, you're welcome to revert me and we can discuss. Thanks for your work on this article--it's much appreciated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Sorry if I misinterpreted. I think it was just the rapidity that took me by surprise. With a hidden section like that, I don't see it as very different to having a link to a separate article. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I question whether the section is worth the investment of editor time here in the main article. At least half the content in it is unsourced, and some of it is written on a grade-school level out of keeping with what's expected in an Good Article ("He had a special fascination with twins. Mengele was known as 'the Angel of Death'.") If we keep the timeline, any truly important information will have to be duplicated, as it will have to appear once in the timeline and once in the body. I don't think that's acceptable or appropriate in a Good Article, and hence I suggested its removal. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I can understand that viewpoint (although I have no problem at all with those two short sentences, grade-school level of not). I think some people, not necessarily just children, find it easier to assimilate information when it is structured into a timeline with aligned images. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to add that the way this could be not a good use of editor time is that we could invest a great deal of time and effort sourcing and re-writing the content, only to have our GA reviewer ask for the removal of the timeline. I think there's a very strong possibility that this could happen, as a lot of the information is redundant. I do understand your point about people having different ways of learning, but I don't agree that we need to present the information two different ways within the one article to accommodate these different styles of learning. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure, before too long, every article, including especially the good ones, will have a "dumb-down" option button, handily placed at the top... Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Martinevans123 - I'm certain you are not meaning that in earnest. -Askedonty (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Askedonty - possibly not. But not sure what I could do to stop it, if that did come about! Am surprised, though, there is no timeline here. BTW, some of the content and images here are very good, unsurprisingly. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand you are thinking the collapsed list would be like an intermediary level - in aridity. That simple article is dealing with very complicated matters. --Askedonty (talk) 22:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think I know what you mean. I guess whole main article is dealing with very complicated matters. But I'd prefer all readers to at least be able to grasp the basics of what happened without thinking to themselves "this article is too large for me to properly comprehend". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC) p.s. the timeline had been in the article for the past six years: original diff

The Gypsy camp

I've tried to source the statistics in this section; I've also added some information about general conditions and events, while cutting a few paragraphs on individuals. The material I cut is below. It seems overdetailed to me for an article of this massive a scope; I can't find any of this mentioned in Rees and Steinbacher's book-length histories of the camp, which suggests to me that it would be undue weight to include it in our much shorter article. I have left the image of Justin's subjects though, which notes Justin's work in its caption. The relevant diff is here if anyone wants to revert.

"Amongst the victims who were killed after being shipped to the "Gypsy camp" was nine-year-old Dutch girl Anna Maria ("Settela") Steinbach, who appears in an iconic, haunting, still image from a film peering out from a transport train that would take her from the Westerbork detention camp in the Netherlands to her eventual death in the gas chambers at Auschwitz. Steinbach was believed to be Jewish until research uncovered her Sinti heritage in 1994.

"German psychologist Eva Justin did a pseudo-scientific study for her doctoral dissertation, titled "Lebensschicksale artfremd erzogener Zigeunerkinder und ihrer Nachkommen" (English: "The life history of alien-raised Gypsy children and their descendants"). The objective of the study was to ascertain the prevalence of "Gypsy traits" in "Zigeunermischlinge", (Gypsy half-breed) half-Romani children, many half-German, who were taken from their parents and raised in orphanages and foster homes without any contact with Romani culture.

"Of the 41 children in the study at St. Josefspflege orphanage in Mulfingen, Germany, 39 of them (20 boys and 19 girls) were shipped to Auschwitz on May 6, 1944. Of the 39 children, two survived Auschwitz; all the others were killed, most during the final liquidation of the camp on the night of August 2–3, 1944."

Thoughts, reverts, friendly scoldings? -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the first paragraph on Settela Steinbach, but the Justin study is pretty (in)famous (and the associated short movie will haunt you if you watch it). I'd keep that info, especially since the info on the Roma in the article is not that extensive overall.Volunteer Marek 03:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I won't object if you want to restore these paragraphs, but it does raise for me a broader question of how we're going to determine weight for different elements during this revision. Auschwitz has so many famous people and incidents associated with it, from prisoners (Elie Wiesel, Primo Levi, Simone Veil) to guards (commanders like Hoss and lower-level individuals like Oskar Gröning and Irma Grese) to people higher up the chain like Himmler and Eichmann, that we're going to have to be pretty concise just to keep the article as a reasonable overview. I don't want to add two paragraphs on Irma Grese, for example--even though she's been the subject of several book-length studies, and is discussed prominently in overview books on Auschwitz--but I also don't want to emphasize a much lesser-known figure like Justin over her.

My suggestion would be that we rely on book-length overviews of Auschwitz--like Rees, Steinbacher, Gutman & Berenbaum, Neufeld & Berenbaum, etc.--to determine what weight we give to different facets of the camp and the killings. Somebody who doesn't appear significantly in those, to my mind, shouldn't appear significantly in our much briefer summary here. Does that approach make sense?

All that said, if you want to restore those paragraphs, I don't have strong feelings about this specific point; I'm just trying to get this article into a better balance generally. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the approach makes sense. The difficulty is going to involve issues which are on the "borderline" - those which are not treated or only briefly treated in general works on the camps (like the ones you list), while they get great detail in more narrow related scholarship. The Justin study is an example of that - I think pretty much any book that deals with the killing of Roma during the Holocaust discusses Justin. Also, as a bit of OR and speculation, I think that what is contained in general overview books is likely to change over time. So much has already been written about Auschwitz that there are few remaining avenues of inquiry left. But the experience of Roma is probably one of those left. Attention to the details varies with new findings or the popularization of previously unexplored aspects. Like I said, that's just my own OR though. Still, maybe we could collapse the paragraph about Justin and her study into a single sentence and keep that in the article? Volunteer Marek 00:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd have no objection to a sentence about her--go for it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source for this?

I've removed the following, since it can't be readily verified (no page number for the cited book, and no way to search this book in Amazon or Google) and seems redundant with other descriptions of camp resistance. (It was also, inexplicably, in the section on "Individual escape attempts"). I added a photograph about the smuggled photos to a section above, but perhaps the detail about the buried notes can simply be cut. If anybody has any objections, the original text is below. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

In 1943, the "Kampfgruppe Auschwitz" was organized with the aim to send out as much information about what was happening in Auschwitz as possible. They buried notes in the ground in the hope that a liberator would find them and smuggled out photos of the crematoria and gas chambers.

Movies filmed on site

I've removed a paragraph about movies filmed on the site; it's unsourced, and strikes me as unnecessary detail for this broad overview article. (Obviously it's a good fit for the museum subarticle, though.) The paragraph is below if anybody wants to revert, and we can discuss:

The museum has allowed scenes for three films to be filmed on the site: Pasażerka (1963) by Polish director Andrzej Munk, Landscape After the Battle (1970) by Polish director Andrzej Wajda, and a television miniseries War and Remembrance (1978). Permission was denied to Steven Spielberg to film scenes for Schindler's List (1993). A "mirror" camp was constructed outside the infamous archway for the scene where the train arrives carrying the women who were saved by Oskar Schindler.

Diff here. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Victims/death toll

I've been working on the death toll figures today, and it seems that there's been some confusion in the article for a while (which I fell into also) regarding Piper's terminology for casualties. When Piper refers to "victims" of Auschwitz, as here, this seems to refer to total deportees to Auschwitz rather than deaths (which, of course, makes sense). Since Rees, Steinbacher, and the A-B museum all seem to accept Piper's work as fairly definitive, I've changed the figures in the lead and casualties section from 1.3 million dead to 1.1 million dead to make this clearer. I'd appreciate being double-checked if anyone has access to more sources on this, however (in particular, I can't see every page of Piper's essay on this in Google Books). -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Images at the Yad Vashem website

There are some truly remarkable images here. Some of them speak as many words as there are in the article. Does anybody know the policy of Yad Vashem in terms of copyright, the entire image minefield which I have avoided up to now. I do not see any copyright or terms of use or anything there. I assume (I could be badly wrong) Would not object to WP usage of photographs for Holocaust educational purposes and awareness? Does WP have any cultural intellectual links with YV? That may be one for Jimbo Wales to look at. Does anyone know the score here re usage of material? Cheers Irondome (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

POV and what are excessive links

Editor Diannaa has made numerous edits, one regarding the deathtoll at Auschwitz. This is contentious, particularly with regard to the crimes committed there. There should be greater justification as to why the editor finds it fit to remove this information.Dogru144 (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

From your section title, are you talking about this edit? All this did was remove some repeated links to the names of authors. Changes to the death toll section were actually made by me, and you can find them discussed a sentence before your post; I'd be glad to hear your input if they concern you. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I did change some death toll figures as well: The figure of 475,000 Hungarian Jews killed between April and 6 July 1944 does not appear in the quoted source (Kárný 1994 page 556) so I replaced it with figures from Longerich 2010 page 408, where it says 437,000 were killed between 14 May and early July 1944. Piper 1994 page 65 gives a total number of Hungarian Jews killed at Auschwitz as 438,000, so it looks like the figure of 475,000 is too high. Dogru144, if you have some sources that give a different figure, please present them here and we can have a look. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yad Vashem gives a figure of 437,000 Hungarian Jews murdered.Irondome (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC) 23:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Command and control

I've done some work to clean up the "command and control" section today, which had a lot of unsourced information, much of it redundant (such as the three different paragraphs re-explaining what kapos were) and a bit of it self-contradictory (the clashing figures on SS personnel). A broad diff is here. Sorry, Diannaa, that I've edit conflicted with you a bit here, but I don't think anything was lost. I'll try to double-check that later and continue working to reexpand this section from reliable sources. Cheers to all, -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

{I'll be off for the next 5-6 hours, btw, so all clear for now. ). -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I had to pause anyway to read Nyiszli, which does not have an index, as some material on the Sonderkommandos was supposed to be in there. Mixed results. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I notice you pulled Steinbacher's figure on the total number of Sonderkommandos--maybe because it conflicted with Nyiszli? I've restored for now, as I think I'd prefer the secondary source over the primary, but if there's something I'm missing here, feel free to take it out again. And sorry for the further edit conflicts! We seem to be drawn to the article at similar times... -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Nyiszli says there were 860 on hand when he was there, and Piper says there were 1,000 Sonderkommandos on duty when the Hungarians arrived. A total of 2000 over the history of the camp seems too low, unless the squads were very small in early days, which is possible. You go ahead and edit for now; i will take a turn later. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a good point, but Steinbacher's surely aware of both of those sources and still wrote the 2,000 total. I think we're safe going with her figure, but don't have strong feelings about it if you'd still like to remove. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Good article prep

Here is a section-by-section review of who did what. Please tick off sections which you have re-worked and verified sources, so we know what remains to be done and ensure no sections get missed. Thanks, Diannaa (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• LeadY both
• Infobox Y Khazar2 (talk)
• 1.1 Background Y Diannaa (talk)
• 1.2 Auschwitz I Y Diannaa (talk)
• 1.3 Auschwitz II-Birkenau Y Diannaa (talk)
• 1.3.1 The Gypsy camp Y Khazar2 (talk)
• 1.4 Auschwitz III Y Diannaa (talk)
• 1.5 Subcamps Y Diannaa (talk)
• 1.6 Evacuation, death marches, and liberation Y Khazar2 (talk)
• 1.7 After the war Y Khazar2 (talk)
• 2 Command and control Y Khazar2 (talk)
• 3 Life in the camps Y Diannaa (talk)
• 4 Selection and extermination process Y Diannaa (talk)
• 4.1 Medical experiments Y Khazar2 (talk)
• 4.2 Death toll Y Khazar2 (talk)
• 5 Escapes, resistance, and the Allies' knowledge of the camps Y Khazar2 (talk)
• 5.1 Individual escape attempts Y Khazar2 (talk)
• 5.2 Birkenau revolt Y Khazar2 (talk)
• 6 Legacy Y Khazar2 (talk)
• 6.1 Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum Y Khazar2 (talk)
• 7 Gallery Y images checked throughout the article. Diannaa (talk)
• 8 See also Y Khazar2 (talk)
• 12 Further reading Y Khazar2 (talk)
• 13 External links Y Diannaa (talk)

Good idea. I'll take a look at this later today or tomorrow. I think I can vouch for all of these other sections except for a bit of Command and Control and AB Museum, where I still need to verify or remove a bit of text. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The lead will likely need a total re-write to reflect the state of the article today. I always do that last. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

One source I don't have access to to verify is Wittmann 2003. Do you have any way to access that? I've put in a request at the resource exchange for now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I also don't have access the Ceserani and Kavanaugh ("a figure that has met with significant agreement from other scholars."), though perhaps we could just say per Steinbacher that Piper's figures have been adopted as the official count by the museum. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have access to Ceserani and Kavanaugh or to Wittmann. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I got the Wittmann through resource exchange and clarified that a bit. I've also taken the shortcut of simply saying that Piper's figures have been adopted as the official account of the museum, since I can verify that with Steinbacher. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I've finished working on the article's body, I think. I've also taken a first pass at revising the lead, but feel free to change it further however seems appropriate. Normally I'd try to write the lead to follow the article's body more closely section by section, but I'm not sure how helpful that would be here; a lot of our sections (inevitably) overlap. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm done for the evening if you want to take a pass. I think when you're happy with the lead, we're pretty close to ready to nominate. Is there anything left on your list? Cheers -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I have added a word about Himmler's visit in 1942 and will watch for other tweeks while I do copy edits. I will do one or two passes of the body of the article to familiarise myself with the sections I did not work on before I have a look at the lead. There's likely some tweeks I can do to the citations as well. Stay tuned -- Diannaa (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It's ready to go. You can do the honours as head editor of this worthy project. Thanks for suggesting it. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, putting it up. And thank you for the collaboration--I'm really happy with how it came out, and I particularly appreciate your verifying so many sources I don't have access to. Given the delicacy of the subject matter, I might ask one or two of the more experienced hands at GAN if they wouldn't mind taking this review on, so perhaps we'll get one soon. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed information

I would like to thank the editors who are improving the article right now. It is progressing towards Good Article status. However, I am wondering about some of the information that was removed. The pre-July edition of this article was too long but had a lot of useful information which is not often seen in other summaries. For example:

• In 1943, the "Kampfgruppe Auschwitz" was organized with the aim to send out as much information about what was happening in Auschwitz as possible. They buried notes in the ground in the hope a liberator would find them and smuggled out photos of the crematoria and gas chambers. [cite: Daring to Resist]
• The "Underground media" section seen here [6] (although it seems poorly sourced and needs to be improved on)

Perhaps a "resistance at Auschwitz" article is merited. Shii (tock) 20:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The Kampfgruppe Auschwitz section can be sourced using Daring to Resist: Jewish Defiance in the Holocaust by Yitzchak Mais, David Engel, Eva Fogelman. Pages 51 and 73. Nyiszli also mentions Sonderkommandos burying documents on the site in hopes that the truth would get out at some future point. I will re-add the material to the article now. I will leave your question about the removal of the media section to Khazar2, as I don't know why he removed it -- Diannaa (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Some form of that information is still in the article, though in reduced form: "Inmates were at times able to distribute information from the camp via messages and shortwave radio transmissions.... The camp resistance group "Combat Group Auschwitz" also took and smuggled out photographs of corpses and preparations for mass killings in mid-1944.[168]" I think this version is more consistent with the weight which most reliable sources give to these events. The Auschwitzer Echo, the camp's "underground newspaper" mentioned in the previous text, for example, seems to be discussed in almost no sources ([7]), so I think it was best to cut it and present a more summaryish version. More widely described events, like the Vrba-Wetzler report, are still presented in detail.

But all this is still a work in process, and any research you'd be interested in contributing on this would be very welcome! Also, I think you're right that a spinoff article about resistance at the camp could be supported by the sources; Pilecki alone has several books out there about his deeds. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I just reviewed Google Books and JSTOR myself and it looks like there is a paucity of literature about the Polish shortwave and Communist newspaper, so the obscure foreign citations would certainly degrade this article. Yet the citations do look reliable and could work on another article. The latter is perhaps mainly attributed to Bruno Baum, who wrote a book about resistance for the East German government which seems to be the subject of criticism over on the German Wikipedia. It's hard to say what the origin of the information is. Shii (tock) 20:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That was my first impression, too. I don't mean so much to dispute the reliability of any of this, just to boil it down to a more summary-ish version. If I've moved too far in that direction, though, I'm happy to have some material re-added--that's part of the reason I noted this deletion here last week in the first place. Either way, thanks for the input and for watching this article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I happen to be at the library so I'm going to add some information to Resistance during the Holocaust now. Shii (tock) 21:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Small correction of fact needed

The article current states "and the employment of Jewish women under the age of 45 as domestic servants in German households." in the "Nuremburg Laws" section - this is reversed (see the Article "[Nuremburg Laws]" - "prohibited ... and also the employment of "German" females under forty-five in Jewish households."

Can someone who has editing rights please fix this? Apologies in advance if this is not the correct place to report this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkohen (talk • contribs) 11:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Good catch! I checked against the given source, too, and you're quite correct. I reversed the sentence accordingly. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Dkohen. I have found the same mistake copy-pasted into a couple of other articles as well. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Robin (talk · contribs) 13:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on; I'll look forward to your thoughts. User:Diannaa is a conominator here, though I wasn't sure how to add her into the template. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

General

• One dablink that needs to be attended to. Robin (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• This is in the "other uses" in the hatnote; it's necessary to link to the DAB page here, I think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Evacuation, death marches, and liberation

• In November (year?), with the Soviet Red Army approaching through Poland, Himmler ordered gassing operations to cease across the Reich. --- I think it would be best to note in which year this took place.

•  Done Good catch. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

After the war

• On November 25, 1947, the Auschwitz Trial began in Kraków, when Poland's Supreme National Tribunal tried 40 former Auschwitz staff. --- I'm confused as to what "tried" means in this context.

• In the sense of "tried for a crime", e.g., "she was tried for murder". -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Owww, now I understand. Robin (talk)

Status

Since this is an expertly written and sourced article, this is all. On hold. Robin (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Just let me know if these responses address your concerns sufficiently. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

They did. Passing. Congrats! Robin (talk) 16:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic work Khazar2! Congratulations. Cheers Irondome (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I think Diannaa ended up writing more than me here, in addition to all that formatting work, so she really deserves more of the credit even if my name's at the top-- Khazar2 (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment re: images

Hi everyone, good job on the article. Comment about non-free images though. As Pilecki and Zimetbaum both have articles on them, are the non-free images here really necessary? Pilecki also has a free image in his article. Keep in mind NFCC #8 about contextual significance. I also question the need to use the Lolling discussion image (also per NFCC#8). Also, shouldn't the galleries be removed per WP:Galleries? I don't see how the gallery is necessary when there is a Commons Cat template already. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll defer to Diannaa on this, as I think she's savvier on image issues. My initial take is that the article would not be seriously harmed by removal of the three images you named or by removing the gallery to let the Commons link do that "work". -- Khazar2 (talk) 07:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, no worries. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Taking out these three non-free images is a good idea. Regarding the gallery, I will make sure all these images are readily available by clicking the Commons link and then I will take down the gallery as well. Thanks for checking this out, Crisco. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Glad to be of service. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from WP:POLAND

As promised, here's my review. I am surprised this passed GA so quickly. Yes, it's pretty close, but there's a number of things mentioned on pl wiki that are not here, which I think should be:

• missing: location within the scope of German administrative division: Regierungsbezirk Kattowitz, Province of Upper Silesia;
• pl wiki provides interesting details about this camp being a World Heritage Site. It notes it is the only site of its type, as UNESCO decided it was to represnt all sites of genocide, and that it uses a rarely use WHS criterium VI
• Pope John Paull mass of 1979 held at the camp and drawing half a million of people seems worthy of mention
• so do the anniversary commemorations; pl wiki mentions 2005 anniversary that drew a number of heads of state and such
• "Polish death camp" controversy, Auschwitz Cross and Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation all seem en wiki articles and seem worth mentioning; they are linked to from pl wiki article
• topics that don't have en wiki articles and could be red linked: pl:Czerwony Domek (Red House - first gas chamber in A.), pl:Judenrampe - the train station used for disembarking inmantes, pl:Ruch oporu w Auschwitz - Auschwitz resistance movement, pl:Masakra w Budach - Budy massacre of October 1942, pl:Międzynarodowa Rada Oświęcimska - International Auschwitz Council (name per their old English webpage [8]), an advisory body to the Polish government.

Outside the missing topics here are two more issues:

• I am a bit confused about the criteria why some content went into History->After the war and some into Legacy. I'd suggest merging those sections
• I also linked one item for clarification. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the above. Here is what I have found out so far.

• Details on location have been added.
• I could not find any sources to confirm that it is the only World Heritage Site of its type, or that the designation VI is rare.
• I found sources on the Pope's visit, but not regarding the size of the crowd. The event is already mentioned at Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum, but without sources.
• Details on anniversary commemorations can be sourced here, but I am not sure this should go in the article, and if so where. Perhaps in the Legacy section, at the end of the first paragraph?
• "Polish death camp" controversy, Auschwitz Cross and Auschwitz-Birkenau Foundation: Added to see-also section.
• Adding red links: not sure about this. For example, I couldn't find any sources for Międzynarodowa Rada Oświęcimska other than on the Auschwitz.org website. Why does this orgainisation warrant a mention in this article? It seems like undue weight to me. The Budy massacre does not seem to be mentioned in this article, so I am not clear where this red link would go. Red House seems a likely candidate for a future article, but almost everything in the Polish article is already included here, so I am not sure what the point of creating a sub-article would be, unless further sources and content could be found.
• I checked two sources and was unable to confirm that a resistance grouped helped Vrba and Wetzler escape, so I took it out.
• Organisation can be done in a number of different ways, and not everyone will agree with the way the material is laid out. "History" is intended to be a chronological account of events during and immediately after the war, and "Legacy" more about the lasting impact of Auschwitz and what occurred there. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Diannaa's a step ahead of me; I was just researching some of this, too. I think the Pope's visit and the German territorial designation are worth adding but I'm not sure about much of the rest; they don't show up in many of the sources about Auschwitz, and I don't think the pl.wiki article is a good guide to determine weight in ours. The sourcing there is extremely poor, and another language Wikipedia is not a reliable source in any case. Anyway, I'll add a line about the Pope's mass now. I did see an attendance figure in one source I can add, though it's not the same as the unsourced claim in the Polish wiki. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• I did start an article on the Resistance movement in Auschwitz, since its absence from Wikipedia seemed like such a glaring omission. I'm not sure how much time I'll have to work on it, so some help would be appreciated. Volunteer Marek  19:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for looking into those issues. I think that the article is now fine for a GA, through for it to move towards FA most of the see also's should be incorporated into the article. PS. I wonder if there should be a section about Auschwitz's significance to regional tourism; there is a not insignificant number of people whose primary reason to visit Poland is only sightseeing (pilgrimage to...) Auschwitz. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Marek for starting that article--I may try to pitch in there next month. And thanks Piotrus for the suggestions! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

In related news, editors interested in this discussion may want to leave comments at Talk:Treblinka extermination camp, as the Treblinka article was just nominated for a GA. Also, I'll ping a contributor to that article, User:Poeticbent, as he may want to offer further comments here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Article need's edit (double word)

After the doors were shut, SS men would dump in the Zyklon B pellets pelletsthrough vents in the roof or holes in the side of the chamber. The victims were dead within 20 minutes.[137] 174.54.232.90 (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the catch. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Official German Record of Prisoners in Auschwitz Concentration Camp, May 1940 through December 1944

The official German records by Richard Glücks contradict much of what is said for the records killed.

The following derives from the prisoner records of Auschwitz camp from May 1940 through December 1944 in the Glücks complete Concentration Camp microfilm records now located in the Russian Central Archives, Central State Archives No. 187603, Rolls 281-286, as follows:

Roll 281, 1940: Frames 107-869 Roll 282, 1940-41: Frames 001-875 Roll 283, 1941-42: Frames 001-872 Roll 284 1942-43: Frames 003-862 Roll 285, 1943-44: Frames 019-852 Roll 286, 1945: Frames 001-329.

The Russian microfilms cover all of the concentration camp records from 1935-1945 and the Auschwitz records were compiled from these. Note, however, that each months reportage covers all the camps and there is no such thing as an "Auschwitz file" or a "Bergen-Belsen" or "Mauthausen file." The Auschwitz material is included in, let us say, the July 1942 file along with other camp entries and compilations.

Table 1: Non-Jewish Prisoners Entering Auschwitz 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 January - 1691 843 9474 1767 February - 1339 1508 4065 1052 March - 221 1071 15618 573 April - 4051 1817 7346 5971 May 70 1793 1881 4868 2097 June 1225 731 2583 3368 1412 July 147 1925 3493 4942 1368 August 1156 473 3106 5282 6890 September 1873 785 1628 4531 4604 October 471 7191 2952 8179 674 November 637 1215 2507 3676 1854 December 1190 1217 3172 4961 1251 TOTALS 6769 22632 26561 76310 29513

Total non-Jews in Auschwitz, 1940-1944: 161,785

Table 2: Jewish Prisoners Entering Auschwitz 1941-1944 1941 1942 1943 1944 January - 1166 6076 1445 February - 6762 2507 1299 March - 1000 9037 1178 April - 3004 5054 3175 May - 9736 2453 18927 June - 3518 2520 8438 July 171 3419 4201 12924 August - 5990 13382 12705 September - 4146 7990 2126 October - 4742 1624 1177 November 1 - 3921 - December 6 - 7180 - TOTALS 178 43483 65945 63394

Total Jews in Auschwitz, 1941-1944: 173,000 Total number of inmates in Auschwitz, 1940-1944: 334,785

Table 3: Total Typhus Deaths in Auschwitz, 1941-1944 1941 1942 1943 1944 January - 1776 2123 2801 February - 1515 2979 1933 March - 3018 4604 2321 April - 1392 2835 1771 May - 2911 2378 981 June - 3688 2980 1575 July - 4124 3438 1121 August - 4968 2633 1847 September - 1497 2901 3313 October 2128 6092 3549 3095 November 5084 103 4621 927 December 2585 1023 4679 120 TOTALS 9797 32107 39720 21805

Total deaths by typhus in Auschwitz, 1941-1944: 103,429

Table 4: Jewish Typhus Deaths in Auschwitz, 1942-1944 1942 1943 1944 January 875 1502 1429 February 906 1729 876 March 1789 3981 1312 April 875 895 632 May 1991 1721 407 June 2406 1990 884 July 3090 2017 455 August 3271 968 1129 September 919 1803 1871 October 4789 2705 1294 November 29 3219 927 December 621 2842 91 TOTALS 21561 25372 11307

Total Jewish deaths by typhus in Auschwitz, 1942-1944: 58,240 Total non-Jewish deaths by typhus in Auschwitz, 1941-1944: 45,189

Table 5: Deaths by natural causes (other than typhus) in Auschwitz, 1940-1944 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 January - 142 120 103 120 February - 175 77 221 191 March - 165 42 198 178 April - 9 39 89 167 May 6 47 23 62 155 June 23 19 21 56 151 July 15 5 16 31 98 August 35 11 5 38 65 September 9 23 19 96 54 October 21 2 25 102 67 November 34 39 49 235 94 December 30 48 61 197 17 TOTALS 173 685 497 1428 1357

Deaths by natural causes (other than typhus), 1940-1944: 4,140

Table 6: Deaths by natural causes (other than typhus), Jews, Auschwitz, 1941-1944 1941 1942 1943 1944 January - 62 62 98 February - 39 117 127 March - 32 120 111 April - 26 43 140 May - 11 37 90 June - 5 41 107 July - 9 16 49 August - 1 24 32 September - 11 61 41 October - 19 81 39 November - 37 104 81 December 7 48 130 6 TOTALS 7 300 836 921

Total Jewish deaths by natural causes (other than typhus), 1941-1944: 2,064

Table 7: Transfers from Auschwitz, 1940-1944 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 January - 657 - - 612 February - 8 196 - 2060 March - - 275 3001 881 April - 1002 158 1024 2500 May - 36 423 - 7923 June - 4 1845 - 9228 July - - 753 - 15628 August - - - 3195 8957 September - - - 600 9091 October 11 - - 4544 33244 November - - - 3500 8309 December - - - 333 1455 TOTALS 11 1707 3650 16197 99888

Total transferred from Auschwitz, 1940-1944: 121,453

Table 8: Transfers of Jews from Auschwitz, 1941-1944 1941 1942 1943 1944 January 271 - - 409 February - 120 - 1843 March - 37 1572 410 April 459 30 630 1927 May 17 112 - 7540 June - 873 - 8109 July - 120 - 13765 August - - 2871 7501 September - - 395 8502 October - - 3201 28509 November - - 3264 7322 December - - 173 761 TOTALS 747 1292 12106 86598

Total number of Jews transferred from Auschwitz, 1941-1944: 100,743

Table 9: Administrative Executions at Auschwitz, 1940-1944 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 Nov 22 40 Poles Jan 3 1 Pole July 3 80 Poles Aug 1 1 Jew Nov 14 151 Poles Dec 1 1 Pole Dec 20 5 Poles Jan 24 1 Russian Apr 3 11 Poles May 27 150 Poles May 28 1 Jew June 4 3 Jews June 9 3 Jews June 10 13 Poles June 11 3 Jews June 12 60 Poles, 2 Jews June 13 6 Jews June 15 200 Poles June 16 2 Poles, 2 Jews June 18 8 Jews June 19 50 Poles, 4 Jews June 20 4 Czechs June 22 4 Jews June 23 3 Jews June 25 3 Jews June 26 40 Poles, 1 Jew June 27 4 Jews June 29 2 Poles, 3 Jews July 1 15 Jews July 2 9 Jews July 14 10 Poles, 2 Jews July 16 9 Poles July 20 50 Poles July 23 2 Jews July 29 14 Poles Aug 11 11 Jews Aug 13 1 Pole Aug 18 60 Poles Aug 21 57 Poles Sept 5 1 Jew Sept 25 3 Poles Nov 9 3 Poles Nov 14 1 Pole Nov 17 1 Pole Dec 4 9 Poles, 2 Russians Jan 6 9 Poles, 5 Jews Jan 14 6 Poles Jan 25 22 Poles Jan 26 7 Poles, 2 Jews Feb 7 2 Poles Feb 9 2 Poles, 1 Jew Feb 13 16 Poles Feb 19 11 Poles, 3 Jews Mar 17 1 Pole Apr 3 26 Poles Apr 13 2 Gypsies May 22 13 Poles, 6 Jews, 5 Gypsies May 31 1 Gypsy June 10 20 Poles June 25 68 Poles June 28 30 Poles July 24 1 Pole July 28 4 Poles Aug 20 38 Poles Sept 4 45 Poles, 8 Russians Sept 21 2 Poles Sept 28 9 Poles, 6 Jews, 12 Gypsies, 1 Czech Oct 11 54 Poles Nov 9 50 Poles Feb 1 19 Poles, 8 Russians Mar 24 4 Poles, 3 Jews Sept 15 2 Poles 40 Poles 238 Poles, 1 Jew 746 Poles, 90 Jews, 3 Russians, 4 Czechs 436 Poles, 23 Jews, 8 Russians, 1 Czech, 20 Gypsies 25 Poles, 3 Jews, 8 Russians

Total Poles executed: 1,485 Total Jews executed: 117 Total Russians executed: 19 Total Czechs executed: 5 Total Gypsies executed: 20 Total number of inmates executed: 1,646

Table 10: Hungarian Jews sent to, and transferred from, Auschwitz, May- October 1944 IN OUT May 8548 2963 June 3981 5934 July 6543 9630 August 3881 1500 September 163 1300 October 1 200 TOTALS 23117 21527

Hungarian Jews remaining in Auschwitz after October 1944: 1,590

Note: The number of Hungarian Jews claimed sent to Auschwitz during May-October 1944 in Lucy Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews, New York (1975) is 450,000; in Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, New York (1985) it is 180,000.

Summary of Jewish prisoners in the Auschwitz camp system, 1941-1944 IN OUT Jewish prisoners entering the Auschwitz camp system 173000 Jewish prisoners who died of typhus 58240 Jewish prisoners who died of natural causes 2064 Jewish prisoners executed 117 Jewish prisoners transferred to other camps 100743 TOTALS 173000 161164

Number of Jewish prisoners remaining at end of 1944: 11,836 plus admissions during November and December 1944

ParisHawkes (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The numbers in the article are those accepted by the leading historians of the topic, including the Auschwitz Museum, and so that's what we've gone with here. Wikipedia articles are written from secondary sources in a field, rather than from primary sources; you can read more about the policy at WP:RS, particularly WP:PRIMARY. Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

spelling error nearly should be nearby

in the phrase "plant being constructed at the nearly town" the word 'nearly' should read 'nearby' see: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nearby thanks for your help. 67.6.107.161 (talk) 11:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Done and thank you. NiciVampireHeart 11:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

inconsistent facts

this section needs some integrated editing:

"The Sonderkommando numbered around 860 prisoners at any given time, peaking at 1,000 men when the Hungarian Jews were killed in 1944. Many Sonderkommando committed suicide due to the horrors of their work; those who did not generally were shot by the SS in a matter of weeks, and new Sonderkommando units were then formed from incoming transports. Almost none of the 2,000 prisoners placed in these units survived to the camp's liberation. " -- the three sentences are well-documented, but when put together the numbers don't add up. If the peak number of Sonderkommando was 1,000, and each cohort was murdered 'in a matter of weeks,' then the total number of Sondercommando must have been far more than 2000. For example, if the average number of Sondercommando were 500 (which is less than the 860 mentioned in the first sentence above), and each group were murdered every 4 weeks, then there would have been 6,500 Sondercommando per year.

These are important historical facts and I hope someone more qualified than myself will take the time to find the actual number of people who were forced into such an unthinkably horrible situation and then murdered.

Thank you for the work you do.

67.6.107.161 (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not qualified to resolve this, but I did take a look, and I notice that FN94 (Nyiszli 2011, p. 41.) fails verification: the Sonderkommando is not mentioned on p.41 at all. Of course, it is mentioned plenty of times on other pages, so this may be just a page numbering error, but it needs addressing. FN95 is only snippet view and FN96 is no preview, so regretfully I can't get any further. --Stfg (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a relevant discussion at Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp/Archive 3#Command and control. I don't think you can go by averages, as the number of Sonderkommanos on hand must have been much smaller in early days and much higher when the Hungarian Jews began arriving on 14 May 1944 (they arrived at a rate of 12,000 per day through till early July). Dr Nyiszli arrived in June 1944, and says there were 860 Sonderkommandos on hand at the time of the rebellion. Nyiszli's book is available locally so I will be able to verify the page number later today and will report back. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the "average of 860", "peak of 1,000", quick turnover figure, and 2,000 total is a bit confusing. Since these numbers are estimates anyway, and Miklós Nyiszli is a primary source rather than a secondary, one possible solution would be to explicitly attribute each figure to an author in-text. It might read a little clunky but it would be consistent with the approach in the total casualties section. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The page number 41 is correct for the edition I was using, and the information appears again on page 155. The number of Sonderkommandos required would be a function of the number of people killed per day, which was dependent on the number of bodies that could be disposed of per day. The procedure in the main crematoria was to stack the bodies in the elevator and bring them up from the gas chamber in the basement and burn them in the ovens on the main floor. There were four main crematoria buildings, with x number of ovens that took x number of minutes to burn a body. I can get exact numbers from Steinbacher as to the number of ovens and their dates of installation (but not until 28 November, someone has it checked out). Remember 437,000 Hungarian Jews (a huge proportion total of approximately one million Jews killed at Auschwitz) were killed at Birkenau in the two-three months mid-May to early July 1944, so many that the ovens could not keep up and the bodies had to be burned outside in open pits. Therefore the number of Sonderkommandos would have been very high in this period, which probably explains the discrepancy. Perhaps if we attribute the number 860 to Nyiszli and state that: "Hungarian doctor Miklos Nyiszli reports that the Sonderkommando numbered around 860 prisoners when he was there when the Hungarian Jews were killed in 1944" -- Diannaa (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense, and I think would be a good fix. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I have gone ahead with this amendment. All Nyiszli citations have been double checked and the page numbers all agree with 978-1-61145-011-8. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm really puzzled. Clicking the ISBN in the article gets to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-1-61145-011-8 and clicking the find-on-Google-Books-Search link there gets to this. Opening that from the title link gets this, and its page 41 is the page beginning "The formalities were the same", which goes on to describe the supply of two bodies and how Mengele turns up to check on Dr Nyiszli. Can you see what's happening, Diannaa? --Stfg (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not looking at Google books; I fetched a hard copy from the library. The Google version is a PDF version of 205 pages, and the hard copy has 222 pages, so the pagination is not the same. Here is where I found the material on page 41, right at the top of the page in the edition I have on hand:

Besides my laboratory and anatomical work, I was also responsible for the medical care of all the crematorium's SS personnel—about 120 men—as well as the Sonderkommando—about 860 prisoners.

"The formalities were the same..." appears on page 34 of my edition (not page 41), in the middle of the page. "Besides my laboratory and anatomical work..." appears on page 46 of the online edition. I can't use the online version for re-writing articles, as the content is only available for about 10 views and then you can't look at it any more, they cut you off so you will have to buy the book. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dianna, now I understand. --Stfg (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Irène Némirovsky

Dear Established User:

I couldn't find a way to edit the Auschwitz concentration camp page.

I wonder if Irène Némirovsky could be added as a 'notable inmate'? She was a Jewish Russian ex-patriot author living in, and deported from, France in 1942. She died at the camp. I think she was somewhat prominent in French literary circles prior to WWII. However, a fairly recently discovered manuscript (Suite Française, found 1998) that has been published (in 2004) in multiple languages and sold very well (millions of copies) has moved her back into the public eye in a big way.

For a source, I don't know, I am not a bibliographic researcher. I suppose her Wikipedia page, or info from her publishers which I can't seem to find easily, could be used to justify the addition?

I don't understand how the talk pages work, so I am trying this submission instead.

Thank you. 188.60.182.1 (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. You made the request just fine. This page doesn't have a section listing notable inmates, but there is another article -- List of victims and survivors of Auschwitz -- which does, and Irène Némirovsky is already included there. There are some sources in Irène Némirovsky, our article about her. If you think there's anything else we might do, please reply here and set answered=no once more in your edit semi-protected request. --Stfg (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply -- Hello. Thank you for the answer. I had not seen that page. The main Auschwitz concentration camp page has a side bar at the top that lists 'Notable Inmates' among an number of details about the camp. I thought perhaps Ms. Némirovsky might fit in there, although I am not aware of what criteria are applied for that very short list.

There's no strict criteria, but generally it's people who ended up in the article's body organically (that is, because they appeared in main sources about Auschwitz that we used to construct the article). For that reason, my first impression is that she's a better fit for the List of victims and survivors of Auschwitz than the main article. It seems like it would be tangential to include her in the article's body, though, and therefore even more tangential to put her in the infobox. Just my two cents; others may disagree. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)