Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

page title needs changing from Auschwitz concentration camp to Auschwitz death camp.

for the Feedback section: The title of the page as Auschwitz concentration camp is beyond troublesome and needs correcting to reflect the historical nature of Auschwitz, and Auschwitz-Birkenau, as a death camp. (There is no visible way to correct the title nor the description in the first text paragraph of Auschwitz as a concentration camp.) While it had slave labor factory sections within and there were slave laborers who processed the arrival of new inmates, Auschwitz-Birkenau was principally and foremost a death camp. The use of the 2 words 'concentration camp' to describe Auschwitz-Birkenau, Sobibor, Treblinka, Majdanek and Belzec is received with great enthusiasm by professional Holocaust deniers. Wikipedia should correct the revisionist wordage of Auschwitz as a concentration camp with the correct text describing what Auschwitz was. It was not a concentration camp. It was a death camp: Auschwitz death camp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akiva K Segan (talk • contribs) 21:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is kept as one article. I realize that many people are thinking of Birkenau when they speak of Auschwitz, but they are distinct camps and should have separate articles. They are near each other and they were co-administered, but their architecture, history, and purposes are so distinct that I'd argue they should not be lumped into one article. I propose a split: an article for Auschwitz concentration camp, Birkenau death camp, and Monowicz concentration camp (Auschwitz III, which already has its own article). Put a disambiguation page at the top of the KZ Auschwitz page: For the death camp Auschwitz II, see Birkenau. I know this would not be a simple edit, since so much information about "Auschwitz" is really about Birkenau. However, convenience is not sufficient justification for lumping together two topics in this fashion. Sacxpert (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I am opposed to splitting the articles as their purposes were not distinct like you say; Auschwitz II-Birkenau was merely an expansion of the camp on the other side of the tracks. It was never solely a death camp; thousands of workers were housed there at any given time.-- Diannaa (talk) 00:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Would re-titling it Auschwitz (or Auschwitz-Birkenau) resolve this concentration/ death camp naming issue?

Gravuritas (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Difficult. 'Auschwitz' gets orders of magnitude more ghits than 'Auschwitz concentration camp', 'Auschwitz death camp' or 'Auschwitz extermination camp' (ratio ~ 2000:40:9:2), so the wikipedia principle of naming a page for what the world calls the subject suggests just 'Auschwitz'. Most complete and accurate would be 'Auschwitz camp complex' or similar, but that term isn't really in use much.

Other wikipedia pages for camps use X extermination camp for Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka and Chelmno (which were all purpose built as death camps) but Majdanek concentration camp for Majdanek, which like Auschwitz started as a concentration/labour camp.

Currently 'Auschwitz' is just a redirect to this article, there isn't a town/village using the name (unsurprisingly).

I'm opposed to splitting the article into Auschwitz I, Birkenau and Auschwitz III for the same reasons as Diannaa, I'm not sure what name I'd prefer, there are advantages and disadvantages to most proposals above. Will think about it. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 07:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Reviewing comments so far, I think the OP is correct and concentration camp in the title is not acceptable because the death aspect far outweighed the concentration aspect. I think you should ascribe more emphasis to your own comment about the number of hits- the single-word title is the best.

Gravuritas (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The title "Auschwitz death camp" certainly does not work as the camp was never exclusively a death camp, and the camp was never known by that name. The camp was only overwhelmingly a death camp when the Hungarian Jews were arriving in May through June 1944, when 437,000 Hungarian Jews arrived and most were killed immediately on arrival. These deaths (in a six-seven week period) account for probably somewhere around half of the exterminations carried out in Auschwitz's five year history. Also, Birkenau had hundreds of barracks buildings that housed thousands of laborers as well as the Gypsy camp, and Himmler had plans to expand to house hundreds of thousands of prisoners who would be employed as slave labourers in factories built nearby. Renaming this article to "Auschwitz" would work imo, because that's the common name for the whole facility, and that title is not in use elsewhere. But my preference would be to leave it where it is, as "Auschwitz" redirects here anyway.-- Diannaa (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

So you are asserting that 'death camp' "is not acceptable because the camp was never exclusively a death camp", but 'concentration camp' in the current title is OK despite the fact that for most if its life it was _not_ exclusively a concentration camp. I'd get those logic circuits seen to. And your implicit belief seems to be that several hundred thousand dead prior to this or that date is not sufficient to make it "overwhelmingly" a death camp. Please think that through again. Reverting to the OP's point, the Nazis named it a concentration camp- and that should suggest strongly that it should not be what we call it.

http://en.auschwitz.org/h/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=32&limit=1&limitstart=5

Gravuritas (talk) 20:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Calling the page merely "Auschwitz" runs into a historical problem :: the name Auschwitz has been around for centuries and until 1939 it was merely the German name for Oświęcim town. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The reason the name "Auschwitz death camp" is not acceptable is because it's not a common name by which the facility is known, and is not a name used in the sources that were used to prepare this article. WP:COMMONNAME calls for us to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources, including the sources used to prepare the article. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm late coming back to this discussion, but a couple points to bear in mind:

• Whether it's always called one thing or another, Auschwitz-Birkenau is often called a death camp. Hilberg and Yahil, whose books I just checked, both refer to Birkenau (or Auschwitz-Birkenau) as a death camp, not just a concentration camp. It's one of six or seven camps always lumped into the death camp category, on Wikipedia as well as in the literature. Regardless of what people might call it, it's also important to remember what something is. Yes, Birkenau was absolutely a concentration camp, with a permanent population. However, it was also the most well-developed killing center ever developed by the Nazis, what Robert Jan Van Pelt called "the ultimate killing machine."
• As to the architectural and historical differences, here is my point. Auschwitz I was used for Polish intelligentsia at first, followed by Russian POWs. Birkenau was built to house Soviet POWs, then expanded to included Jewish slave labor and mass killing operations. Auschwitz is a brick facility whose roots date to the Hapsburg empire; Birkenau is an obviously-improvised facility of the Nazi era. Yes, many of the same sorts of people wound up in one or the other camp, and they were co-administered, but my point is that there are enough distinctions to warrant separation. Their architectural histories are almost entirely unique.
• This brings me to Auschwitz III. It already has its own article. Granted, Monowitz is further separated geographically, and is famous for its entanglement with IG Farben. However, if Auschwitz III warrants its own article, then Auschwitz II, with its function as the Third Reich's deadliest killing center, warrants a separate article, too. Sacxpert (talk) 05:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The idea of a detailed article on Auschwitz II Birkenau is a good one, and there's plenty of sources available on the topic. But Auschwitz II Birkenau only received 690 page views in the last year, so this is low priority work imo, something I personally will not be taking on. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2014

Please add an info about non-profit Auschwitz Teacher Training Course. This is a program dedicated to school teachers as well as university professors. The aim of the course is to equip the teachers with metholodgy indispensable in discussing the subject of Holocaust with young people, while simultanousely broadening the teachers' knowledge of the subject. The course, organized yearly by Escape2Poland in cooperation with the Asuchiwtz-Birkenau Museum, is a non-profit program.

Source Escape2Poland Ecomgeroy (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Noonotable. The website itself looks like tourism advert. To Ecomgeroy: please contribute information to wikipedia, not promotions. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
• I also oppose. I have de-activated the edit request template. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Anne Frank did not die at Auschwitz

She died in Bergen Belsen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.149.202.133 (talk) 09:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. However, it is true that she was also an inmate of Auschwitz, which is all that this article states.Hoops gza (talk) 16:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2014

Toward the middle of the article, there is an entry "Polska żyje" that is mistranslated "Poland live." It should read "Poland lives," which is the grammatically correct translation.

americanren (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for spotting this mistake. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Legacy section edit request

Can someone add a link to Rudolf Vrba in the list of "notable memoirists" in the Legacy section? He wrote an excellent book titled "I Escaped from Auschwitz".184.8.220.58 (talk) 06:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The info there is sourced, and Vrba does not appear in that source. Vrba is already mentioned in the section "Escapes, resistance, and the Allies' knowledge of the camps" -- Diannaa (talk) 13:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Nazi Socialism

There seems to be some aversion to including the following line under /History/Background, could whoever is re-editing say why? The Nazis did indeed try to fuse nationalism with elements of socialism

"The ideology of Nazism brought together elements of antisemitism, racial hygiene, and eugenics, Socialism and combined them with pan-Germanism and territorial expansionism"

Oxr033 (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a Good Article, and all the content is sourced. You have added the word "socialism" in this sentence, which is sourced to Evans, Richard J. (2005). The Third Reich in Power. New York: Penguin. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-14-303790-3. The word does not appear in that source. I have removed it again. The same goes for your addition of "fifth column"; the assertion may be true, but it's not in Longerich, and it is off-topic for this article regardless. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes I see I have mixed up the source, OK i will include a source once I find out how to add sources to wikipedia without messing up the formatting. The fifth column isn't off-topic and I will endeavor to find a reputable source for that. Oxr033 (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Good luck in finding a reliable source for your intended edit(s). Remember, it needs to be not only reliable but also in context and within the article's scope. It won't be an easy task, I'd say. But if you think you'd find one, post it here (together with your intended edit) and if valid, I'll help you to format it correctly.TMCk (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2015

The first line of the second paragraphs says:

'Auschwitz I was first constructed to hold Polish political prisoners, who began to arrive in May 1940.'

It should be:

'Auschwitz I was first constructed to hold Polish political prisoners, who began to arrive in June 1940.'

When you read the article later you see that the prisoners brough in May were German criminal prisoners who became the first functionaries of the camp. Poles, political prisoners, were deported to the camp from June 14, 1940.

Pawelsawicki (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Pawel Sawicki (Auschwitz Memorial)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 11:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"most infamous doctor" Mengele

Mengele is described as "the most infamous doctor" employed at the camp. I question using the term "most infamous" as it is not a measurable superlative, and perspective of his ill-fame is likely to vary in the eyes of readers of different nationalities (often depending on how much prominence was given - I note that the Soviet authorities controlled much of what was allowed to be reported about the camp in their day). He may have been probably the most conspicuously known but he was not the only one. Could a synonym be found, one that reflects more precisely the proportion of influence he had among the deaths in the camp?Cloptonson (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I think that's hair-splitting. He was clearly the most notorious doctor employed there, as evidenced by the two Hollywood movies in which he was portrayed and the publicity given to his postwar flight. Coretheapple (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2015

Please add the following picture to the "After the War" section. It's a picture I personally took with my own camera when I visited the camp in 2013. I've just uploaded it WP Commons.

File:Birkenau-guard-post.JPG

One of the watch tower guard posts at Birkenau (Auschwitz II)

Thank you. -Jac

Jacomoman (talk) 22:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done - I have added it in the section "Life in the camps". A very spooky image. Thanks -- Diannaa (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Staff tried or convicted

I just noticed that the article says, "Around 15 percent of Auschwitz's 6,500 staff were eventually convicted of war crimes", whereas Frankfurt Auschwitz trials says on the same matter, "only 63 individuals [...] have ever been tried". This doesn't seem to be consistent; can someone clarify? --92.12.59.135 (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The statement at Frankfurt Auschwitz trials is sourced to Yad Vashem, here. Yad Vashem only counts people brought to trial at the First Auschwitz Trial (November 24, 1947 - December 22, 1947) and the Second Auschwitz Trial (December 20, 1963 - August 10, 1965). The data in this article is sourced to Auschwitz: A New History by Laurence Rees. What's likely happening here is that Rees includes additional trials not mentioned by Yad Vashem (why the difference, I don't know, but will try to figure it out). I have access to the book at my local library, but someone has it checked out right now. It's due back on May 5, so I will get back to you after that date and let you know what I find out. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Rees page 295 makes it clear that there were multiple trials. The Frankfurt Trials had 22 defendants with 17 convictions. Additional trials were held, most of them in Poland. A total of 789 Auschwitz SS staff were brought to trial, according to Rees page 296. His source is "The Apprehension And Punishment Of The Auschwitz Concentration Camp Staff", in Wacław Długoborski; Franciszek Piper (2000). Auschwitz, 1940-1945: Mass Murder. Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum. p. 116. ISBN 978-83-85047-87-2. 789 out of 6,500 is only 12 per cent so I have corrected this article. I have also added the data from Rees to the other article so that both are now the same. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

.... But there is now another problem of the numbers. One para says 6500-7000 staff served there, another says 6500 survived the war. Seems unlikely.

Gravuritas (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This count is for SS staff only. Rees says on page 295 that 6,500 SS who served at Auschwitz survived the war, and Steinbacher 2005, p. 40 says there were 7,000 altogether. So I have repaired using this data. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Museum's website?

I was surprised to see actual Auschwitz Museum website missing from the external links section. There is one for Auschwitz Jewish Centre (which is not the same as Auschwitz Museum), so is there any reason for this? 78.88.192.209 (talk) 00:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for a good suggestion. No idea how this got missed. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:49, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

4 million reduced to 1.1 million?

Why wasn't the 6 million figure reduced to 3.1 million? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.109.70 (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Because the figure of six million, which is, conceded, a rounded-off figure, is thought to be correct. There has been some discussion and downwards modification of the death toll at Auschwitz, but this is only to transfer casualty lists from one camp to another. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Nazi or German Nazi?

I wanted to nip a potential edit war in the bud - just got into a dispute with another user over whether to call Auschwitz a "Nazi" or "German Nazi" concentration camp. I argued that "German Nazi" was redundant, since it is generally understood that the Nazi Party tightly controlled Germany during World War II. (In a sense, it was not the "real" Germany, since it was not a free government checked by the people, so the masterminds of the Holocaust were first and foremost of the Nazi Party.) I wanted to take the dispute here and get consensus rather than, ya know, get blocked for edit warring. Thanks, Lord of Mirkwood (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Excessive references to "German nazi concentration camps" are probably unwarranted but a few instances of such usage just helps with clarity. And sorry, but I got to mention it; you seem to know a helluva lot about Wikipedia for a brand new account.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: WP:NOTCLUELESS and WP:QUICKSOCK. I created my account in April 2015, and after that made no edits until last week. During the intervening almost-2 months, I spent a lot of time reading Wiki policies. That's a good idea for any editor before going into the fray. Lord of Mirkwood (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Citation 164 refers back to the article itself, although the hyperlink text (Snyder 2010, p. 275. ) is to a book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.228.5 (talk) 08:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The citations are done with {{sfn}} templates, which create a hyperlink from the citation [164]→ to the footnote Snyder 2010, p. 275→ and thence to the bibliography. You will notice that "Snyder 2010" is blue – it's a hyperlink too – and if you click on that, it will take you down to the bib and the data on the book itself. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Food and calorie intake at Auschwitz

I was wondering if the following text is correct: Prisoners received a hot drink in the morning, but no breakfast, and a thin meatless vegetable soup at noon. In the evening they received a small ration of moldy bread. Most prisoners saved some of the bread for the following morning.[111] Nyiszli notes the daily intake did not exceed 700 calories, except for prisoners being subjected to live medical experimentation, who were better fed and clothed.[112]

I have the information guide from the Auschwitz museum publiced by Kazimierz Smolen in 2015. It states that the prisoners received between 1300 and 1700 calories a day. It also describes the meals that the prisoners got a bit differently.

I did some research online and found the 1300-1700 calorie limit at multiple websites. I'm not an expert on the Holocaust however, so I won't change the article until someone knowledgeable comes along.

KeesRaket (talk) 17:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The content in the article is sourced to Nyiszli, Miklós (2011) [1960]. Auschwitz: A Doctor's Eyewitness Account and Steinbacher, Sybille (2005) [2004]. Auschwitz: A History. Other first-hand accounts such as Night support the assertion that the inmates were starving. While it's not mentioned in the article, there was a huge discrepancy (because of theft and corruption) between the food intake the prisoners were supposed to receive and that which they actually received. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Kazimierz Smoleń, Auschwitz, 1940-1945, ISBN 0964429314 confirmed. Poeticbent talk 18:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The 1300-1700 calorie figure is cited in this article in the Jewish Virtual Library. However, I agree that the current sourcing is much better than this website. Coretheapple (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The Jewish Virtual Library is quoting Auschwitz Museum article according to a disclaimer at the bottom of their own page leading to article "Living conditions. Labor. Executions" (now at Wayback), based on book Auschwitz 1940-1945. Central Issues in the History of the Camp by Franciszek Piper and Wacław Długoborski (2000), ISBN 8385047875, published by the Museum. This makes two books and two websites already claiming 1,300–1,700 calories in daily intake. I think it's worth taking into consideration as possible range. Poeticbent talk 19:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Or just don't mention the possible amount of calories at all. Even if they got 1700 calories that would still not be enough to prevent them from starving to death. To Poeticbent: In my first post I wasn't referring to Smolen's book he released in 1995. I mean the information guide he wrote for the Auschwitz museum. Although I stated it was released in 2015, looking into it further, 2015 could also be the year this guide was first translated in my language. KeesRaket (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps not. However, my central point is that we need to be using the highest quality sources, considering the amount of Holocaust scholarship there is out there, and not just taking stuff off websites. Coretheapple (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

You know, reading through the sources I can find online, it seems that the consensus is that inmates received a bowl of turnip soup, 250 grams of bread and no water per day. The last point needs to be made. Most sources don't give any calorie count at all. They also note that food was often stolen. So I think that a calorie count could be misleading, particularly if the upper end is used. Better to simply use the anecdotal descriptions utilized by the sources. 250 grams of white bread today is 625 calories, but these inmates were eating bread laced with sawdust, and the turnip soup probably had negligible calories. Coretheapple (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2015

Simple typo correction needed in the "Subcamps" section. Currently "armanents" to "armaments". 2605:A601:4B3:5B01:5506:8D56:F28E:31D0 (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2016

This sentence seems a bit awkward and contradictory: "Very few Kapos were prosecuted after the war, however, due to the difficulty in determining which Kapo atrocities had been performed under SS orders and which had been individual actions." I'd suggest taking out "however" in order to increase the comprehensibility of this sentence. 101Ales (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the suggestion - Arjayay (talk) 07:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

adding reference

I was going to add this ref, but I am not familiar with this referencing style. Could someone add it, if deemed relevant?HappyValleyEditor (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

It may be relevant, but don't we have a better source than a tabloid? Coretheapple (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

That source is from 1995? That's interesting as it contradicts this 2005 article [1], which says: "In Germany a growing number of people do not understand that IG Farben´s successors Bayer, BASF and Hoechst still refuse to apologize for their mideeds." 86.171.17.120 (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes and I found another article from the late 1990s in which a Bayer spokesman said that the company is not the successor to Farben. That was in the context of a lawsuit. We need a better source than a brief tabloid article for a subject of such consequence. Coretheapple (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, researching this further, I see that the Daily News accurately reported that the head of Bayer apologized to Eli Wiesel in a lecture but overstated it as an apology by Bayer. It was not a formal apology by the company. Coretheapple (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

German Nazi concentration camp?

It was build in Poland, by polish people, most staff were polish people - shouldn't it be "Polish concentration camp"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.181.229 (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Your assertions are incorrect, and responsibility will stay exactly as it should.

Gravuritas (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Terrible English.

The article, being of paramount importance, is written in poor English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.68.208.252 (talk) 08:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you point to specific sentences or sections which you feel are poorly written? I've just skimmed some of it & can't see what you are referring to.

Gravuritas (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2016

On the page, under "Escapes, resistance, and the Allies' knowledge of the camps" under the "Birkenau revolt" it says that "250 Sonderkommando were killed" when it was actually 451.

KingColeman23 (talk) 20:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the figure of 451 is already given over at Sonderkommando, supported by three other online sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Gypsy Camp

This reference gives the figure killed when the Gypsy camp was demolished. The surviving population of 2,897 was then killed en masse in the gas chambers. Another source gives 5,600. Nazi Germany: Confronting the Myths By Catherine A. Epstein, pg 165. Should I include both, or just the higher figure, and state that there is a range?Guns of brixham (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

References

I will do it, since you don't know how to format citations. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Death toll

Regarding my removal of content added to the lead by User: Logicalgenius3. I don't think we shouldn present any one estimate in the lead as being definitive; please see the section "Death toll" for estimates of various historians. Also, saying in the info box that the facility had 1.125+ million inmates is misleading, as the number of prisoners varied widely at any given time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

"don't" + "shouldn" = "should", but your whim ("I don't think") is not consistent with the Wipikedia's WP:SOURCES and prohibited (WP:OWN). You seem not reading the cited sources, but you should, and also must before baseless reverting, which is a blanking vandalism. Please, do read them. Those are not estimates, but credible calculations made several times by the Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss himself before he was tortured, had nothing to gain from lying, and also confirmed by accurately calculated capacity of the crematoria - thus an estimate, but the actual figure.

The "Inmates" line refers to the total number and not at any given time (i.e. the capacity; who cares), as the "Killed" line does, and we know that almost all (1.125 M) killed were Jews, and only a handful survived, so the 1.125+ M number is accurate and much better that the word "mainly", which denotes not accurately. --Logicalgenius3 (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

There's a difference of opinion among scholars as to the death toll at Auschwitz. Please read the "Death toll" section for more information. Höss's numbers are only one of many estimates and cannot be considered definitive in my opinion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Dianna. Dr. K. 00:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Whether agree or disagree, you seem not to understand the difference in significance between the written account on 3 different occasions of a key witness/perpetrator confirmed by a scientific calculation from guesstimates of historians. Well, too bad - (Personal attack removed), but hold some power at Wikipedia to its detriment.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Experts include Höss's claims in their considerations. It is not our job to judge who is correct, but only to report what good sources report. I agree with Diana too. Zero^talk 13:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

1. Zero, your input above is unacceptable, as:

• your statement "[e]xperts include Höss's claims in their considerations" did not prove those considerations WP:RELIABLE, as the experts' results differ (see Diannaa's above: "There's a difference of opinion among scholars...") proving their unreliability, as variation proves unreliability;
• your statement "[i]t is not our job to judge who is correct" is inconsistent with Wikipedia's WP:CONTEXTMATTERS policy requiring the editor to judge;
• your and User:Dr.K.'s statements "I agree with Diana too" and "I agree with Dianna" respectively claimed blind support and thus not consistent with WP:Talk page guidelines#Maintain Wikipedia policy, as WP:CONSENSUS "does not mean... nor is it the result of a vote".

2. The Diannaa's statement above "[t]here's a difference of opinion among scholars as to the death toll at Auschwitz" automatically disqualified their output for the Wikipedia consideration, as not reliable WP:SOURCES, because mutually contradictory and thus mere incompetent (careless) opinions (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS). So, the User:Dr.K.'s statement disproved his own position, as "difference of opinion" argued against his support of reliability. In other words, User:Dr.K. proved by himself that what he was rooting for not reliable sources.

3. Since - as Zero said - "[e]xperts include Höss's claims in their considerations", than Höss's claims are the only primary source (WP:PRIMARY), which additionally is confirmed by the scientific calculation of the crematoria's total output. But expert's claims are only secondary sources (WP:SECONDARY) and varying (thus unreliable), and the primary sources take precedence over secondary ("[a] primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts..." which the number of dead is). Thus, according to above mentioned Wikipedia's rules, and absence of reliable secondary sources, the only encyclopedic approach is to use the primary source and not the secondary ones based on that primary one, as they are unreliable (mere inconsistent opinions), because varying.

4. Diannaa falsely reverted my edit of 01:48, 13 November 2016‎ claiming that "David Irving is not considered a reliable source" where the sources were by esteemed Professors Robert Jan van Pelt and Donald Bloxham. Diannaa falsely reverted my edit of 21:35, 13 November 2016‎ claiming that "[w]e shouldn't present any one estimate in the lead as being definitive" where the data was not an estimate, but the accurate calculation for the primary source (Höss). Diannaa falsely reverted my edit of 23:32, 13 November 2016‎‎ claiming that "Your edit has been challenged and removed. Per the WP:BRD cycle, you need to go to the talk page, where I have already started a discussion" where the inducing the WP:BRD cycle was based on said 2 false reverts ("challenges"). In other words, Diannaa falsely reverts 2 edits and than, based on those false challenges induces thus falsely the WP:BRD cycle. It is very clever single-editor WP:OWNBEHAVIOR prohibited by Wikipedia. Then, Diannaa's WP:OWNBEHAVIOR gets blind support from User:Dr.K. and Zero, which thus are multiple-editor WP:OWNBEHAVIOR.

This is how you justify a Wikipedia's position. Wikipedia is not a subject to personal WP:OWNERSHIP. Please, do follow the Wikipedia's rules.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

There are seven sure-fire indicators of POV-pushing. They are: 1. Use of blatantly partisan and unreliable sources 2. Relentless edit-warring to support the partisan and unreliable sources in part 1. 3. Personal attacks to support parts 1 and 2. 4. Walls of text. 5. Unsuccessful attempts to change the RS core policy of Wikipedia while in a dispute about reliable sources with other editors. 6. Noone on wiki agrees with you. And, finally, 7. Your edits get reverted repeatedly by multiple editors across several articles. I think all seven apply to you in spades. In this case, there is only one way out: You should reconsider your attitude. Dr. K. 03:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, is Höss being considered by editor Logicalgenius3 to be a reliable source? K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes K.e.coffman, as being a murderer does not make one a lair, like in the case of Höss, whose initial 3 testimonies included detailed calculations, were scientifically verified, and thus are the only primary source the best contemporary historians rely on, as shown here by citations (1), (2), and (3). Simply, Höss had nothing to gain from laying since it did not matter how many millions of deaths he commanded. Adding speculations of old-school historians over Höss's account adds only another layer of uncertainty, which decreases the credibility of the actual number anyway derived only from Höss. Thus, citing other sources than those from esteemed professors and based only on Höss's initial 3 testimonies is less accurate than old-school speculations, and thus not encyclopedic. That is the essence of the issue here. You can check everything over, as all is verifiable.--01:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

You are doing original research here. Who are you to say that a mass murdered would not have a motive for lying? Zero^talk 02:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

No, it is by here by citations (1), (2) (especially the footnote 76 of [2]) by Robert Jan van Pelt and Donald Bloxham. BTW, you need to do some checking before opposing anything or just participating in a discussion instead of just waiting for someone to explain the content of the links provided just above and available by just clicking on the links.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I have undone this edit because we can't say in Wikipedia's voice that the data on the museum website is official. The fact that the museums accepts 1.1 million as the official death toll is already present in the article in the section where we discuss the various death toll estimates, and I have added as an explanatory note their breakdown by ethnicity. I've also moved their estimate of 1.3 million total number of prisoners to a different place in the article and stated that it's their data. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 06:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2016

Please add the following external resource: The Nazi Concentration camps: a teaching and learning resource about Auschwitz and other Nazi camps (University of London) http://www.camps.bbk.ac.uk/index.html Scholar792 (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

• (Transcluded from Talk:Nazi concentration camps#November 24, 2016 revert) User Scholar792 (talk · contribs · count) (today's 8 edits, total) is and SPA created to promote a brand new website http://www.camps.bbk.ac.uk/ teaching and learning resource based on text by Nikolaus Wachsmann, Professor in history at London University’s Birkbeck College, author of recently published KL: A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps (2015, 865 pages).[2] — Professor Timothy Snyder of Yale University (paid per view, at Wall Street Journal) describes Wachsmann as a 'revisionist' from "the best of the German and the British schools of grand World War II history."[3] Please keep an eye on it. — Thomas Laqueur wrote that "Wachsmann estimates there were 560 [satelite camps ... meanwhile]; a survey in 1990 based on an earlier report by the Allies has a much higher figure and runs to nearly 700 pages of small type."[4] The numbers don't add up. — Professor Ferenc Laczó of Maastricht University writes that "while pointing to institutional and organizational connections between the KL system and the three Globocnik death camps, Wachsmann discusses the latter sites only briefly ... some of KL’s emphases may also be debatable" such as the insistence on Konzentrationslager (KL) uniqueness.[5] Poeticbent talk 16:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I am marking this request as Answered, because the source does not look useful. The data added to Nazi concentration camps from this source differs widely from other sources and has been removed by another editor. — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 17:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Date format

The date format in the article is inconsistent, mixed mdy and dmy, though mdy in majority. This should be corrected, but which way? The article is tagged with "use mdy dates", but the topic has little to do with North America (where mdy dates are used), so I think that should be changed.

HandsomeFella (talk) 11:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we should go with dmy dates throughout. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I have gone ahead with this improvement. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Post-war history

Most of what we know about the operation of Auschwitz comes from the fact that around 7,000 prisoners who bore witness to it (according to the museum website), were liberated by the Soviets and survived. Our article says that there were 7,500 of them (Jones, 2011 & Steinbacher, 2005) although that is not essential. What really matters is that the post-war history of Auschwitz in our own article is insufficient, and improperly placed (just above 'Command and control') breaking the natural progression of thought and basic chronology. The post-war history needs its own stand-alone section, best placed lower down just before the 'Legacy.' I'd like to use the model already developed in the GA push for the Treblinka article, where the arrival of the Soviets is described 'after the revolt'. Notably, Treblinka extermination camp was not (quote-unquote) liberated. When the Soviets entered Treblinka on 16 August 1944, the camp had already been levelled, ploughed over, and planted with lupins. Immediately after the liberation of Auschwitz tremendous efforts were being made by the Polish Red Cross and the locals to save the sick and emaciated survivors. There's not a word about that in our article, apart from a cynical note (attributed to Rees, 2005) about looking for gold, which is based on outdated scholarship with a very thin source base clashing with preconceived notions and selective evidence. I'd like to go ahead and create a new section about the post-war history of Auschwitz replacing the old 'After the war' subsection of general info, so please bear with me. Poeticbent talk 18:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the section needs to be replaced, but we do need content on the efforts to help the survivors. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

What's your suggestion, Diannaa? Should I create the Post-war history section, or not? In the general background section we have a subsection called 'After the war'. It is the only place in the article so far, that could include the efforts to help the survivors. What follows it the description of:

1. 'Command and control',
2. 'Life in the camps',
3. 'Selection and extermination process',
4. 'Escapes, resistance, and the Allies' knowledge of the camps' (as well as)
5. 'Legacy'.

There's no stand-alone section about what happened in the two years after 27 January 1945. The last sentence from the camp's history at the end of 'Birkenau revolt' section begins with: "Crematorium IV was destroyed..." The next, opening sentence, in section 'Legacy' begins with: "In the decades since its liberation, Auschwitz has become a primary symbol of the Holocaust." There's a big chronological vacuum in the middle; i.e. the survivors, most of them Jews, suffering from starvation sickness, alimentary dystrophy, gangrene, necrosis, internal haemorrhaging and typhoid fever; as well as the work of the Polish Red Cross, the orphanages, the doctors and hundreds of locals volunteering their time, food donations, mass funerals with thousands of people in attendance, etc. Is it OK with you if I put all that in the general background? Poeticbent talk 05:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

There's a section called "After the war". It's right at the bottom of the "History" section, and the opening paragraph covers the period from 1945 to 1947. This is where the new material belongs in my opinion, as that's where the chronology section is. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Soviet prison camp

Hi Carlotm and Prinsgezinde, I didn't write that phrase about Auschwitz being operated by the Soviet NKVD myself (someone else did, almost seven years ago, see here). But when I saw Prinsgezinde removing that text I thought it was wrong to do so. I read that phrase this way: the Soviets used Auschwitz too, as a prison camp, after World War II. That's based on this phrase in the main text, in paragraph 1.7, After the war: "Until 1947, some of the facilities were used as a prison camp of the Soviet NKVD."

But maybe you two do read that short passage in the infobox as though the Soviets also ran it as an extermination camp, like the SS? Or do you have another problem with the text?

Hope to hear from you, thanks, --Matroos Vos (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The title of the infobox is "Auschwitz German Nazi concentration and extermination camp (1940–45)", and rightly so. Therefore the tag "Operated by" can only refer to to those who operated the camp in that time span. I wounder why you are unable to see that, as if you are looking at it with a pair of distorting glasses. Carlotm (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

No need to react that agitated. I went by the title of the main article: "Auschwitz concentration camp". For me the text about the Soviets in the infobox isn't as big an issue, as long as the main text mentions the fact that, until 1947, some of the facilities were used as a prison camp by the Soviet NKVD. So I can live with removing the text from the infobox.

Have a nice day! Matroos Vos (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Matroos Vos: I was unaware of them running it as a prison camp. I figured that it was only mentioned because they used it as temporary hold for camp personnel or victims or whatever. But yes, I found the notion of the Soviets "running Auschwitz" kind of absurd. I can't verify the source but it seems legitimate. It's still a shaky statement because it appears they just used some of the buildings to detain war criminals, but no harm done. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Prinsgezinde, after all I think you were right in removing that text about Auschwitz being used as a postwar prison camp by the Soviets from the infobox. It is a fact, but in the context of the infobox it becomes rather ambiguous, as if the Soviets used Auschwitz as an extermination camp, like the Nazis did. The Soviets have a rather sad record concerning prison camps themselves (just think about the millions that died in the Gulags), but there are other places to mention that.

I see, hereunder, that Poeticbent is going to make a serious effort to improve the postwar section, based on recent historical research, and I can only applaud that. Matroos Vos (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

More sources tag

The material twice tagged by Crossswords as "additional citation needed" is the opinion of historian Laurence Rees. We don't need multiple sources for Rees's opinion, so I have twice removed the tag. This time, I also framed it more clearly as being Rees's opinion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2017

The See Also heading should be Also See. i had to do this because my OCD is going through the roof because of that. JustinTheSuperHuman (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC) JustinTheSuperHuman (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Not done @JustinTheSuperHuman: unfortunately it will have to remain somewhere in the proximity of the attic then I'm afraid  ;) because as per WP:SEEALSO, our manual of style recommends this particular form of words. Indeed, it is the norm for works of reference generally. Sorry about that! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 14:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Legend to map

Does 'location in contemporary Poland' really mean 'location in modern Poland'? Poland didn't really exist after 1939.Clivemacd (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point and I changed it. Zero^talk 01:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Polish name

Hello, since this camp in in Poland, should there not be the Polish name of the camp in the intro, just after the German one? I do understand that the German name "Auschwitz" seems to be the most used even in Polish, however since the Polish name can also be legitimatly used and seen, I feel it should be mentioned just once in the intro so as to clarify things. 82.66.17.17 (talk) 09:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Old text: Auschwitz concentration camp (German: Konzentrationslager Auschwitz, pronounced [kɔntsɛntʁaˈtsi̯oːnsˌlaːɡɐ ˈʔaʊʃvɪts] , also KZ and KL Auschwitz) ...

New text: Auschwitz concentration camp (German: Konzentrationslager Auschwitz, pronounced [kɔntsɛntʁaˈtsi̯oːnsˌlaːɡɐ ˈʔaʊʃvɪts] , also KZ and KL Auschwitz; Polish: Obóz koncentracyjny Oświęcim) ...

I don't see any problem with this change. Coretheapple (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I have serious doubts regarding this. The official Polish web site names it "KL Auschwitz-Birkenau" only. --Joerg 130 (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It needs a reliable source which states this to be the Polish name (not just a Polish translation of the German name). Of course there is much sensitivity around issues like this. Zero^talk 01:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Oświęcim which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2017

The transfer of 10000 soviet prisoners to Birkinau was supposed to provide a labour force for building the camp and also the labour force for the IG garden plant.

Himmler had convinced IG Farben he could supply a workforce before Operation Barabossa although he did not indicate how amor where . The Planning of Birkinau camp by Earl made one latrine for 700 inmates and one one wash room for 7800. In camp BA1 Gissala Perl reported "there was one latrine for 32000 women and we had to stand in line knee deep in excrement.The Latrine was a deep ditch with a plank and we all had dysentary. we Squatted on the planks so close we soiled each other".

Hoss was aware of the catastrophic situation as the death rate climbed from such conditions. He reported same on 3 December. The latrines and wash rooms were far from the hastily constructed dwellings . Sick prisoners had to walk a long distance and with such poor hygiene and lack of food, the death rate would be expected to be high. IN the Month October 1255 prisoners had died. This news was not welcome in SS Headquarters in Berlin where these formerly fit young men were considered a labour asset.

By January 8000 of the 10000 prisoners had perished from the filthy insanitary conditions. ANDREW GIBSON (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Occupied Poland...

See The Holocaust Encyclopedia, Walter Laqueur editor (ISBN 0-300-08432-3) p. 32, Auschwitz entry beginning "Auschwitz was founded as a German concentration camp in southwestern occupied Poland...". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

However, that does not contradict the fact that Auschwitz was in the annexed part of Poland. The change that you made put could be misinterpreted as putting Auschwitz in the "General Government" (outside the annexed area) which would not be historically correct. See, e.g. [6]. It's not controversial or in dispute that the area was in the annexed area. So while Lacquer was certainly correct that the area was occupied by the Germans, that does not contradict that it was indeed part of the annexed portion, as stated in the various articles on the subject, including the one on Oświęcim. Coretheapple (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

:I edited my remarks as I misread the previous edit as incorrectly linking to an article on the General Government (the non-annexed occupied area). However, it was linked instead to a more broad article on the overall occupation. However, I think we need to be precise. I understand why this is a controversial issue so let's discuss rather than edit-war, pls. Coretheapple (talk) 00:04, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Coretheapple, that editor (a little-used account) has been removing "occupied Poland" and all mention of Poland from the lead since 2009. [7] Now the lead doesn't say it was in Poland until the last paragraph. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I was just focusing on the "annexed" element in the infobox. We certainly want Poland in the lead. Coretheapple (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I self-reverted as frankly I hadn't noticed the change in the lead. But changing the infobox to "annexed" Poland is not a terrible idea. Thanks for pointing that out. Coretheapple (talk) 00:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting again. If we want to explain about occupied versus annexed, the best place might be the third paragraph of the "Background" section, but I'm not sure what difference it would make in the context of this article. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

As long as we're linking to the correct article (I had misunderstood that originally), saying "German-occupied" in the infobox is fine. The annexed areas were also occupied, after all. I've struck out above so as to not confuse matters. Evidently this has become a sticking point due to that new Polish law, so I understand the sensitivity. If editors wish to change the infobox we need to come to a talk page consensus first per BRD, as the stable version of the article says "German-occupied." Coretheapple (talk) 12:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

We have Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany which states a location for Auschwitz. There may be some sensitivity to Poland where it makes a difference as to whether the local government was run directly by Nazi Germany as an annex or through Polish proxies in occupied areas (Auschwitz itself was obviously run directly by Nazi Germany). There's a lot of nuances regarding ethnicity that I'm not familiar with so if there are editors familiar with controversies and sensitivities regarding Poland and the Holocaust, I'd be inclined to follow those sensitivities as long as they are accurate. --DHeyward (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

If there's consensus to change occupied to annexed, I don't mind. The problem with Dert45's edits was that he was removing "Poland" entirely from the first paragraph. Instead of "operated by Nazi Germany in occupied Poland during World War II", he was writing "operated in Nazi Germany in areas annexed during World War II", [8] or "operated in Nazi Germany in Gau Silesia in areas annexed during World War II". [9] SarahSV ^(talk) 16:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• There's some relevant discussion in Geneviève Zubrzycki (2009). The Crosses of Auschwitz: Nationalism and Religion in Post-Communist Poland. University of Chicago Press, pp. 119–120.

She discusses how the Auschwitz Museum changed its name in 1998 to remove the reference to the camp's locations, Oświęcim (Auschwitz) and Brzezinka (Birkenau). (Our article doesn't mention that Auschwitz II was in Brzezinka, and Birkenau redirects back here.) The museum did this in part to establish the camp's "Germanness", according to the museum, and to establish that the camps were not "Polish camps". In 2005 the American Jewish Committee issued a statement emphasizing that the camps were "located in German-occupied Poland", and were not Polish camps.

Zubrzycki writes that "many Poles also oppose the designation 'Nazi camps in Poland'", because the area was annexed. They objected when the European Union issued a resolution referring to Auschwitz as a "death camp in Poland".

Now we have Poland's new law, Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance: "[Anyone who] ascribes to the Polish Nation or to the Polish State, responsibility or co-responsibility for Nazi crimes committed by the Third Reich ... is subject to a fine or [to] imprisonment for up to 3 years." See Guardian. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:16, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

That's helpful, thanks. I don't see people going around Wikipedia changing these articles to refer to them as 'Polish camps," which would be inaccurate and POV pushing. Instead I see a concerted effort to indicate that these camps weren't in Poland at all. I don't get that. Apart from being inaccurate and POV, it implicitly gives the German occupation legitimacy. Hell, the Germans occupied that territory briefly, and then got pushed out. During the time it was occupied it was still Poland. The fact that extermination camps were installed there, by the Germans, doesn't detract from the fact that it was still Poland. These articles make fairly clear that those parts of Poland were under German and not Polish control. So I am not getting the political philosophy that appears to underline the case that these camps weren't in Poland at all. Coretheapple (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Me neither. And if the principle were accepted, we would have to make the same changes at Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp ("present-day Austria"), Fort Breendonk ("present-day Belgium"), Drancy internment camp ("present-day France"), etc. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

An even more analogous situation involves the Theresienstadt concentration camp, which was situated in the Sudetenland, which not only occupied by the Nazis but was annexed into the Reich. Yet we accurately refer to that camp as being situated in Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia, and there has been no controversy over that whatsoever. Coretheapple (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Location in Poland?

Why in infobox is location Poland? The camp build and excisted in 1940-1945 in Nazi Germany.If this template is about the Camp, location is wrong.

Anyway, Auschwitz not excist anymore, and today in Poland is Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum.

Also the UNESCO object is Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum and not Auschwitz concentration camp. Auschwitz concentration camp never was in Poland.

In this infobox is wrong keep info about UNESCO. UNESCO object is Former Auschwitz concentration camp as un exposition in the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum.

So for historical object if we put curriend localisation, it should be note (add). --Swd (talk) 13:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Swd: It says "German-occupied Poland", which is correct. If you have reliable sources which put it elsewhere, please cite those. Kleuske (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I seem to remember that the legality of the claim of Nazi Germany over Poland was kind of disputed a little bit. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Look Friends it have sense if there are two conected infoboxes. I can not do it because I don't know how but in this way it have sense. In fact, there should be two conected infobox there - one for the camp 1940-1945 - and the other for museum and UNESCO.

So if the infobox is about The Camp, should be data and location from the time of its activity. Look how we did it in the polish Wikipedia after speak with group of historian. Infobox about the Camp is with former data, and its conected with infobox about Museum and UNESCO with actual data. All can be corect better, because if in the Inforbox I read that Nazi German Camp is (was?) in Poland, it's somthing what is not logic. Remember also that, camp dosent excist in the years 1945-1947 then The site of the former Nazi concentration camp in Auschwitz together with all the buildings and installations standing there is to be kept forever as a 'Monument to the Martyrology of the Polish Nation and other Nations. So now it's not Auschwitz like in 1945 but it's Monument. I hope you will be understand me better now. --Swd (talk) 14:06, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

EDIT: Yea infobox is about the camp: Infobox concentration camp, so location in Poland is wrong. In Poland is Museum and Former concentration camp (since 1947), and Auschwitz as the camp excist bettwen 1940 and 1945. In my opinion should be two infobox (conected?) - one for concentration camp and other for UNESCO or Museum. Maybe someone can help in this. --Swd (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I think en.wiki generally has one article, with one single infobox, for historical sites such as thus, You are welcome to open an RfC to propose two separate infoboxes, but I don't think that will gather much support. As I've also suggested above, many folks think that Poland was still a country regardless of it's illegal occupation by Nazi Germany. This is beginning to look a bit like WP:IDHT. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Uh, I'm sorry, but I can't quite understand what is being argued here. Is it really trying to say that Nazi Germany's annexation of the land around Auschwitz was legal and recognized by the Polish government after the war? Because ... if we say that the location of the camp while it was in operation was in Nazi Germany, that's what we're implying... that the annexation was legal. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the argument is that the Polish government-in-exile was in London, so that "the area previously known as Poland" was no longer Poland, but something else: Nazi Germany or "areas annexed during World War II". This is like calling Kuwait "Iraq" after the invasion of Saddam Hussein. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the main purpose of the locator map is to provide the reader with an idea of where the site is located, not to make a political statement. For example, changing it to read "Location" from its current "Location in Poland" would provide information only to those people who can recognise the outline of Poland on a map. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit more than just location within the current geographical borders of Poland. A better example than Kuwait would be a decision to name the location of Japanese Detention camps as being on specific Indian Reservations. While techically accurate, I could see how naming the location as included within the reservation would upset those that had no control or association with the camps while implicitly linking the Indian reservation to the detention camps. For Poland, annexed areas were purged of Poles and governed by a different structure than the occupied areas. There was no Polish involvement in the area during the Holocaust and I believe the objection is to placing the location of Auschwitz in an area where Poles neither lived nor worked. Poles lived and worked in the occupied areas but not annexed areas and associating Poland with the Holocaust is controversial. The German governor for occupied areas was different than the German governor for annexed areas and the differences are being minimized here. I don't see how describing it as the "annexed" region vs. the "occupied" region hurts the article in any way and seems to be less offensive to Poles. "Least harm" seems to support changing it. We do have articles on annexed and occupied Poland and the differences. --DHeyward (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

But what you're describing happened throughout all the territories occupied by the Axis. Manchuria, for instance, under the Japanese-installed puppet regime, was the site of grisly experiments on POWs and the local population that to this day are not fully known or appreciated. In Burma a large part of the population was enslaved. It went on and on like that. China, ditto. Our job here I think is to reflect the reality of the activity in these territories, and while I entered into this discussion with some sympathy re "annexed" vs. "occupied," my sympathy has declined as I see some of the POV pushing. Coretheapple (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• This thread is closely connected with the current events, described in the article Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance. User:Swd (in Polish Wikipedia since 2005, 9032 edits) might be unaware that we do cover the controversy here in the English Wikipedia also. The same questions about Auschwitz pop up again and again. Poeticbent talk 16:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yes its going again and again, because most of people who read it (for exap. young people) don't uderstand why location of Camp (not Museum but Camp) is in Poland? If infobox informed us about Camp (past), should be in the map location from past or any. Of corse in the part of Museum or "UNESCO object" can be polish currient location. This infobox is not about Museum or UNESCO but about the Dead Camp, so if you put location "In Poland" need be note "Actuall", "Todays", "current location" - anything like that. Serving in the template - Infobox concentration camp - polish location without it, it's just falsification of history. The Camp does not exist and never existed in Poland. There is a monument in Poland: The site of the former Nazi concentration camp in Auschwitz together with all the buildings and installations standing there is to be kept forever as a 'Monument to the Martyrology of the Polish Nation and other Nations. User talk:Diannaa she gave a reasonable suggestion. You can delete the description "In Poland" or use a word that determines that the location is actual and not historical. Maintaining the present form, with the ignorance that prevails in the world, is falsification of history and insulting Poles who dead in the camp. I also lost a one of my familly in this camp, murdered by Germans. In this period of time it was not Poland, and there was dead many Poles. We forgave the Germans, but we Poles can not agree to falsification of history. Especially with lack of knowledge in the world - such false additions cause "Polish death camp" controversy. I want you to be sensitive for it, especially since the article has the "status of silver". My suggestion is also to remove the map at all. In the battlefields which, like the camp, were no longer there - no current maps are added. Similarly it can be here. The map is only needed for the UNESCO object and Museum, but this INFOBOX is about Camp. Museum (Monument) and Camp are two different things. Thank you for your answers and help.--Swd (talk) 07:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

References

The map is useful for tourists. I'd suggest changing the label to 'location in present-day Poland', if someone is very cautious. Nobody in Poland would object to saying that the camp is located in Poland, in present tense. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've implemented this suggestion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I disagree with that edit. The implication is that much of what seemed to be happening outside Germany was really happening within it, just as Hitler believed. So we ought to refer to "present-day Belgium" (see USHHM and Areas annexed by Nazi Germany) when referring to what happened there during the Holocaust. Similarly, we ought to rename Holocaust in Belgium, and indeed parts of Holocaust in Poland and all the other annexed areas, so that Wikipedia's European map reflects Hitler's.

If someone wants to explain about annexation versus occupation, the place to do that (briefly) is the third paragraph of the Background section. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree that "present-day" is not optimal, as it was Poland then too, but under occupation. Such usage opens a Pandora's Box. Do we say "present-day Czech Republic" when recounting what happened in German-annexed Czechoslovakia during the war? These were transitory wartime occupations that came to an end as soon as the Allied armies arrived. Also, let's keep the stable version and not change until there is a consensus. Coretheapple (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

There's a similar effort underway at Treblinka: "Location of Treblinka in present-day Poland". [10] SarahSV ^(talk) 22:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• No other country in Europe had the borders so dramatically moved during and after World War II. Treblinka article has a map of prewar Poland and the Holocaust in Poland, Auschwitz article does not. Poeticbent talk 22:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• • Well whatever we're going to add or remove or change needs to be done after achieving consensus on the talk page. I started this discussion because of my sympathy for an effort to change the infobox to indicate that this camp was in the annexed part of Poland. I still think that's not a terrible idea that should be discussed. But whatever is done has to be discussed not edit-warred, as these are stable articles reflecting preexisting consensus. Coretheapple (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
    • That the same change has been made there suggests that this has nothing to do with annexation, because Treblinka was not in the annexed area. Is the argument that none of occupied Poland was really Poland? SarahSV ^(talk) 22:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• The implications for contemporary Poland are overwhelming. The Polish Jews brought to Treblinka, Sobibor and Belzec did not come from Ukraine and Belarus, but from occupied Poland (including Poland's provincial capitals). Poeticbent talk 22:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• But that's neither here nor there. These camps were in Poland. Efforts to downplay or omit that fact are POV pushing. Full stop. Coretheapple (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
• One other point: I actually think that your edit in the Treblinka article might have some merit. But again, it's a question of process as much as anything. If there is edit-warring or overreaching the outcome will be different than discussing the subject on the talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• What "POV pushing" are you talking about, Coretheapple? What "efforts to downplay or omit" what "fact"? People are trying to help you here – including myself – so please pay more attention. We all know that death camps were build by the SS on the territory of occupied Second Republic, half of which was overrun by the Soviets in 1939. All death camps (!) were built by Nazi Germany in occupied Poland (following Barbarossa). Treblinka was never a part of this thread, but similar to Diannaa, I thought of implementing this suggestion before SlimVirgin made me realize that the phrase "present-day Poland" was inappropriate. But why did you revert my last edit to Treblinka,[11] with a helpful piece of information for the young reader? Poland's borders changed dramatically, and yet, there's no map of prewar Poland in this article. SlimVirgin and I were not edit-warring at Treblinka per WP:BRD rule, but you were (apparently by using the Wikipedia:I just don't like it argument there). Poeticbent talk 05:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

in the Treblinka article you were adding text that was far too lengthy for a caption and also unnecessary. as you replicated what was in the infobox directly below. Funny how there are no such hair-splitting and constant edit-warring and "IDIDNTHEARTHAT"" tactics concerning the location of Nazi camps---except for the articles on camps situated in Poland. I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly on this. For the last time, the camps were in Poland. Any effort to find a euphemism for that is contrary to WP:FRINGE and is POV-pushing.

As I previously opined on the talk page of "Polish death camp" controversy, the same principles apply to use of the term "Polish death camps" as to whether that is a misnomer. It is, and therefore it acceptable to say that definitively and clearly in the lead of the "controversy" article, in my opinion. But WP:FRINGE cuts both ways. Just as referring to these camps as "Polish" is fringe-theory POV pushing, so too are some of the edits and positions I've seen concerning this article, so as to not state definitively and clearly that this camp was in Poland. Coretheapple (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Where was Auschwitz

10:23, 15 February 2018‎ Ealdgyth (talk | contribs)‎ . . (109,550 bytes) (-28)‎ . . (no - it was not "IN Nazi Germany"...) (undo |

Please explain your revert war. Auschwitz was in Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany administratively in Germany, Province of Upper Silesia, Regierungsbezirk Kattowitz, Landkreis Bielitz, as the article says. Is the article wrong? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Read above for the consensus. The Germans were occupying all of Poland, basically. Let's not sugar-coat the brutality of the occupation by claiming legality for the annexation. Nor should we say that the camp was "built and operated in Nazi Germany"... it should be "built and operated BY Nazi Germany". I slightly prefer the link to the occupation of Poland article rather than the annexed areas of Poland article - because the annexation was never agreed to by the Poles - and merely by linking to it here it might give the idea that the Poles weren't rather nastily occupied during WWII. Annexed is so much more "clean" sounding. But we should never say remove the fact that the camps were operated by Nazi Germany ... at any time. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the ‘legality for the annexation’ is a misinterpretation by Ealdgyth. The area in question had been annexed by the Nazis. The Poles didn’t like it. But for you to now say that they can’t describe that it was annexed because they didn’t like it is a non-sequitur, and this insertion of legality is just creating a straw man argument. It had been annexed, by force, and it was eventually de-annexed, also by force. Legality had nothing to with it in either direction. What is the problem with annexed?

Gravuritas (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC

The question is not whether Poland "liked" the annexation, the question is whether the world at large (meaning countries not allied or controlled by the Nazis) recognized it, and they most certainly did not. The distinction, then, between the "annexed" areas and the "occupied" area of Poland is one without a difference -- both were, factually, conquered and occupied by the Nazis. When the Nazis were defeated, this situation was immediately rectified. History is, after all, written by the victors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not clear what edits are at issue here. Please post diffs. There are two distinct and different reverts involved. Coretheapple (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

If I was an editor, or a reader of en.wiki, living in modern day Poland, I'm sure I would be equally keen to resist even the slightest suggestion that Poland, as a country, was in any way responsible for any part of the Holocaust. As Ealdgyth suggests above, the key fact it seems to me is that it was all perpetrated BY Nazi Germany. wherever it best suited them. There must be some way of preserving historical accuracy, while respecting modern sincerely held national sensibilities? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but any change needs to be discussed, not enacted by edit-warring. Right now I'm not even sure what reverts are at issue as nobody has bothered to post diffs, even when requested. Coretheapple (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the first revert I did, where I restored "built and operated by Nazi Germany in" and removed the Gau Silesia inserted right before. It was reverted and changed to here, where the "by" remained but the gau edit was restored along with adding back in the "annexed areas of occupied Poland" bit. Next edit is mine, again removing the Gau and annexed bits (which see above) and changing the piped link target Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany to Occupation of Poland (1939–1945), which is a better link in my opinion, as it doesn't sugar-coat the brutality of the occupation. I'll note that the edits I reverted were by someone who only seems to edit to insert this sort of stuff. They've been reverted by a number of different editors for these edits. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Given that this is controversial and disputed, the status quo (which is the consensus version per WP:EDITCONSENSUS) should remain pending discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to add that I agree with your edit and BMK's point above. Coretheapple (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I also agree; that is, I prefer "was a network of concentration and extermination camps built and operated by Nazi Germany in occupied Poland during World War II, with the link for "occupied Poland" leading to Occupation of Poland (1939–1945). First, the world did not recognize the annexation; Poland remained Poland despite Hitler, just as Kuwait remained Kuwait despite Saddam Hussein. Second, readers are more likely to understand "occupied", and they will infer from it that Poland did not control the camp. But they may not be so familiar with "annexed". Editors who want to use "annexed" in the interests of Poland may be shooting themselves in the foot. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Given Core’s poInt, the article should be reverted to the link to Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany until the discussion and consensus has occurred. ‘World recognition’, like the earlier ‘legality’ is just another red herring. The analogy with Kuwait and Saddam is a false analogy: look at the various maps of ‘Poland’ before, during, and after the war: Poland did NOT remain Poland despite Hitler (or Stalin). I suggest, given that there is no dispute as to the fact of annexation, that some sensitivity is appropriate.

Gravuritas (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, it's no red herring, it's a fact. These are Nazi camps located in occupied Poland, but not "Polish" camps in any real sense of the word. They were not established by Poles, they were not run by Poles, they had Polish inmates, and were located in what had been Polish territory until the Nazis occupied it. That makes them Nazi camps located in occupied Poland. Any attempt to call them "Polish camps" will be removed as unfactual and distorting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point. I absolutely am not referring to these as Polish camps. Or maybe I’ve misunderstood something. I thought the request from apparently a Pole, was to refer to the camp as being in Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany, which happens to be true, and I was supporting that request. ‘Occupied Poland’ is also true, but conflates at least two categories ( or more, depending on your timeline)- one of which-Soviet occupied Poland- is irrelevant to this article. I don’t understand why the factual and precise term PaaNG is being argued against in favour of the woollier terms using ‘Occupied’. The ‘legality’ and ‘world recognition’ concepts are indeed red herrings. And it is of concern that statements are being made like ‘Poland remained Poland...’ and ‘The Germans were occupying all of Poland’ which suggests a lack of historical context.

Gravuritas (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The original edits were here changing "operated by Nazi Germany" to "operated in Nazi Germany", does it again (and changes occupied to annexed), changed "by" to "in" again, again with "by" to "in" and changing occupied to annexed, does the same thing again, and again, and again. That's seven changes of "by Nazi Germany" to "in Nazi Germany" in the last two weeks or so. Personally, I don't think this is a Pole ... I'm not sure what is with the changing of "by Nazi German" to "in Nazi Germany" but the effect is to diminish the responsiblity of Nazi Germany for the operation of the camp. I'm not quite to the point of calling it denialism but it's getting close. (Quite frankly, I'd be fine if the article said "operated by Germans" instead of "Nazi Germany" but that's the vindictive side of me that's studied the Holocaust a bit too much and wishes the perpetrators to the farthest depths of Dīs Pater's realm for their crimes.) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

At the risk of alienating everyone, may I put forward ....”operated by Nazi Germany in Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany” for consideration? Gravuritas (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

No. "Annexation" was a Nazi wartime artifice. This was Poland. I'm surprised that people from Poland would want to make that point, given that it was Poland and that the Nazis stuck their goddamn camps there. Honestly! Coretheapple (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Annexation in this instance refers to real-world changes that make ‘artifice’ completely inappropriate. The desire to put as much distance as possible-linguistically for the purposes of this discussion- between Poland and that outcrop of hell is perfectly understandable and should not cause you surprise. Gravuritas (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, these so-called "real world" changes were not recognized by the real world, only by the Nazi-controlled or Nazi-allied world. As far as the real real world was concerned, the territory the Nazis considered to be "annexed" was Polish territory, period. The camps are therefore best described as being in "Nazi-occupied Poland" - it's totally irrelevant whether that occupation took place in Polish territory that the Nazis said "this is now ours" or in Polish territory they threw into the dust bin and said "this is now the General Government." Occupied is occupied, no matter what fig leaf you apply to it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The real world I was referring to was the world of who got shot for failing to bow to whom, not an at-the-time irrelevancy of what someone with a law degree a long way away opined. If anyone is actually interested in what the situation was, on the ground, when these camps were operating, then Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany seems to describe the situation, whereas Occupation of Poland (1939-1945) has extraneous stuff, and yourterm of Nazi-occupied Poland does not exist as a WP article. Do you not think it might be of interest to a fraction of readers of this article to understand the background in which the camps were operating?

Gravuritas (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gravuritas: Wikipedia can't single out one country for different treatment, so any change in naming conventions would have to apply to the camps in all the annexed areas, such as Belgium. Then we would have to argue why annexation requires the change in how we name countries, but occupation doesn't, and why annexation by Nazi Germany during WWII is special, or whether all countries annexed or occupied should be described differently if bad things happened within their borders during that period. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

One aspect which you and others are missing is hidden in the references to ‘Poland’ as if it were one and indivisible. Geographically, there are at least 3 Polands during the era in question: the part of pre-war Poland removed by the Soviets after the war; the areas of Poland included in both the 1939and the 1945 borders; and the western areas of post-45 Poland added by the Soviets. Population-wise, there were similar massive changes, some due to slaughter and some to re-settlement, enforced or otherwise. And the regime differences within the various subtypes of Occupation were rather more significant than, say, between occupied France and Vichy. As mentioned above, I think the key in this case is the existence of an extensive WP article on PaaNG which does precisely apply, and imho this is more useful than non-analogies with other countries in other circumstances. As mentioned before, ‘OccupiedPoland’ has very specific non-parallels with other occupied countries as the Soviets were also ‘Occupiers’.

Gravuritas (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this flurry of interest related to the Amendment to the Act on the Institute of National Remembrance? The Polish government has been widely criticized for it, and it's not something that Wikipedia should try to reflect. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The only part of it we should respect is to not call the camps "Polish concentration camps", "Polish extermination camps", or "Polish death camps", but not because of the law, because of the ambiguity as to what "Polish" means in those phrases. It can mean either "located in Poland" or "camps made by the Poles", and since that is the case, we should strive to avoid any ambiguity by being certain that they are referred to as "Nazi death camps in occupied Poland" or similar phrases. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely. As far as location is concerned, we go with what the preponderance of sources say, and they are overwhelmingly that it was German-occupied Poland. While the points made by Gravuritas are serious ones and I certainly respect the sensititivities, nevertheless we have the obligation to go with "occupied" as opposed to "annexed." Remember that occupied is not inaccurate, but is simply the common usage. Given the high visibility of this article I think it is incumbent upon us to exercise great care. Coretheapple (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Further data-points, take them for what they are worth - but our articles on Nazi concentration camps and List of Nazi concentration camps use either "German-occupied" or "German-controlled" for the entire system of camps, whether in annexed areas or not. Our article German camps in occupied Poland during World War II gives camps in both the annexed areas as well as the General Government. File:MajorConcentrationCamps.png, which illustrates the main concentration camp article, has no differentation between Greater-Germany and the just occupied areas. Further examples from our articles are relatively easy to find - most Holocaust articles related to Poland do not make much distinction between the formally annexed areas and the occupied areas - both are lumped under "German-occupied" in the scope of articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That's because the entire system was all over the Europe, which was all occupied, but of parts directly annexed to Germany out of my ignorant head I can remember only Anschluss of Austria and Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany (pieces of France and Czechoslovakia maybe?) We freely speak of annexation of Austria all the time, which was illegal per Treaty of Versailles. What's wrong with speaking about Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany, for a more precise description of Auschwitz? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

To be blunt - there are 300 million Americans (or somewhere around there) who will read "annexed" and think it was a bloodless legal move and not bother to click through to the article to see how oppressive it was. The only annexation most Americans will have heard of is when a city annexes some surrounding unincorporated land and figure that there isn't anything bad or nasty about being annexed. Americans, as a general rule, are historical ignoramuses. And those few that will recall some of their school-history will think about various annexations in US history, which again were relatively bloodless. If we're really lucky, they might remember Texas annexation which was preceded by a war, but ended up as a "good thing". Other areas "annexed" in US history include Hawaii and West Florida. To Americans, annexation is not a bad thing and they will likely subconsciously think of "annexed areas of Poland" as being analogous to Texas' annexation. Sad to say, but I no longer think that my fellow Americans are at all historically literate. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

- and by the same argument, ‘Occupation’ to the same people means a student sit-in. So what’s your point?

Gravuritas (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It isn't only Americans; most readers won't know what annexation is. Occupation is almost certainly more widely understood. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Come off it, guys. A couple of four-syllable words and we’re speculating on which semi-literates will understand which word, least? Let’s collectively raise our game.

Gravuritas (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not only semi-literates. Almost no one will understand annexation, except perhaps that it has something to do with occupation. Most people will understand occupation (someone invaded and in some sense took over). If you want to explain more, it can be done in the Background section. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Better tell our fruity friend. S/he has used the a...x word several times below. And it’s sprinkled elsewhere in WP articles. Should we root it out? Any other polysyllables that the proles should be defended from?

Gravuritas (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• by claiming legality for the annexation I fail to see where the heck the article declares legality of annexation. What is more, as our article "annexation" says " to the forcible transition of one state's territory by another state.[2] It is generally held to be an illegal act." I.e. "annexation" is even worse than "occupation": occupied may still have a token of autonomy (even if puppet). Annexation excludes even these false pretenses. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, our article on Theresienstadt concentration camp indicates that it was in "German-occupied Czechoslovakia" and it was situated in the Sudetenland which was annexed by Germany in 1938 and was primarily German-speaking. That is standard Wikipedia usage, to describe such locales in camp articles (when outside Germany proper) as being in occupied territory, as that is how the sources describe them. Indeed, all of Austria was annexed into the Reich. Big deal. It was Austria. Historians acknowledge the annexations etc. but describe the situation in terms of actual reality, which was German occupation, and we do so as well. The Theresienstadt article is not at issue, but we're having this discussion purely because of political issues that should not be allowed to influence Wikipedia. Coretheapple (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Re my mention of Austria above, see Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp. Note where we describe it. Austria. Austria was German-speaking and was annexed (with the consent of most Austrians I believe) before World War II. There is a map of Austria to illustrate where it was located. Yet for a good many years before 1945 there was no distinction between Austria and Germany. But again, we describe it as being in Austria because historians, while recognizing the annexation, don't give a damn. That camp was in Austria, not Germany. However, again, there isn't some big political issue in Austria over that, so we don't have Austrian editors trying to change the language of that article the way is being done here, Coretheapple (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I think you’re fighting too hard against an imaginary foe. I see no political difference between the terms ‘Nazi-occupied Poland’ and PaaNG, and a priori, both are equally acceptable imho. The difference, again imho, is that we don’t have a WP article on Nazi- occupied Poland but we have a good one on PaaNG, so as a practical question of which makes WP a better encyclopedia, there’s no contest. But I’vehad enough of arguing against false analogies and patronising views on how the great unwashed will misinterpret a fairly simple word.

Gravuritas (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I of course would be happy for this whole issue to go away, but it hasn't. I don't know what "PaaNG" stands for. Coretheapple (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Air National Guard, obviously. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany

Gravuritas (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the acronym clarification. Actually, as to your point, we do have an article on both the General Government as well as the annexed area, and a broader article on the overall occupation Occupation of Poland (1939–1945). Given that choice of hyperlinks for the lead, it seems to me that either the broader or the annexed article would do, but I think the overall one is more informative for an article on a camp, for readers seeking more information on the occupation. Within the body of the article we can and should make a reference to the fact that Auschwitz was in the annexed area, with appropriate hyperlink. Coretheapple (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Clearly linking to the General Government would be incorrect. If the broader article were on Nazi-occupied Poland then you would be making a reasonable point. But Poland’s occupation by two aggressors means that half the Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) is completely irrelevant, and then to find the specifics it’s necessary to start winnowing another 25% wheat from chaff, i.e. annexed vs GG, etc. Given that the broader article contains so much extraneous stuff, please support your contention that ‘the overall one is more informative’ with some specifics. It needs to be considerably more informative to overcome the burden of being 75% irrelevant.

Gravuritas (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh please. None of the article is irrelevant, and the majority of the text is given to the German occupation. It is a larger more comprehensive article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. How is the Soviet occupation of parts of Poland relevant to Auschwitz?

Gravuritas (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I've already addressed that. "Status of German minority" is present in the the annexation article and is similarly not directly relevant to Auschwitz. We need to look at the whole article and its relevance to background on the camp. Admittedly not a do-or-die question, and not one that necessitates excessive angst I hope. Coretheapple (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

No, you haven’t addressed it, you’ve just made a ludicrous claim, of the broader article, that “None of the article is irrelevant”. So in the interest of angst-reduction, I suggest you avoid making such claims.

Meantime, yes, referring to the two possible linkages, the point that I have been repeatedly trying to make through the background noise and ludicrosities is precisely their “relevance to background on the camp”. I’m glad you’ve got there, but not confident given the forgoing that you’ll take a balanced view.

Gravuritas (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gravuritas: This is a warning: discuss edits and ideas, not editors. "...not confident ... that you'll take a balanced view" is not an acceptable comment given that the discussion has been on-point and (for the most part) civil. People disagree, and consensus can only be reached if everyone is open to the possibility that they are mistaken and their opponents are right, at least in some respects. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

”None of the article is irrelevant”. Discuss.

Gravuritas (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Heydrich head of Sicherheitsdienst and SiPo in 1939

The article describes Reinhard Heydrich as the head of the Gestapo in 1939, he was already head of the SiPo (Sicherheitspolizei) and Sicherheitsdienst under which the Gestapo was subsumed...people throw around the term Gestapo to apply to all Nazi security agencies, it is inaccurate (the site wouldn't let me edit it).Historian932 (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

On 27 September 1939, the SD and SiPo (made up of the Gestapo and the Kripo) were folded into the new Reich Main Security Office or Reichssicherheitshauptamt (RSHA), which was placed under Heydrich's control. (Source: Longerich 2012, pp. 469–470.) So he was head of the SD, SiPo, Gestapo, Kripo, and RSHA as of 27 September 1939. But the event where Heydrich is described as head of only the Gestapo took place on 21 September 1939, before this amalgamation took place. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Image Gallery

• 
  Barracks at Auschwitz I camp
• 
  Electrified fence near barracks at Auschwitz I camp
• 
  Execution wall in Auschwitz I camp
• 
  Auschwitz-Birkenau barracks
• 
  Auschwitz-Birkenau barracks
• 
  Auschwitz-Birkenau boxcar used to transport prisoners into the camp
• 
  Ruins of the complex of gas chamber and crematorium at Auschwitz-Birkenau camp
• 
  Inside the barracks at Auschwitz-Birkenau camp
• 
  Auschwitz-Birkenau entrance
• 
  Latrine at Auschwitz-Birkenau

Ciprian.lazar (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2018

New Image Gallery added to the article, with photos i uploaded recently. The photos are from 2015. The code that can be added, bellow:

Not added: Wikipedia is not an image gallery. The correct place for galleries is the Commons, where the photos are already located. Several of these photos are off-kilter and several are very similar to pictures already in the article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Auschwitz disambiguation page

Notification of a discussion at Talk:Auschwitz (disambiguation)#Auschwitz III – please discuss there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Romani

" 23,000 Romani and Sinti," Wikipedia's article on "Sinti" states "the Sinti are a Romani people". So, what is the meaning of the expression "Romani and Sinti"? Does it mean "both non-Sinti Romani and Sinti Romani"? In which case, why not just say "Romani"? Should it say "Romani (including Sinti)" or "Romani (especially Sinti)"? 5.80.55.112 (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The Romani people article says that Sinti are a subset of Romani but they prefer not to be called "Romani"; they prefer the demonym "Sinti". — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, there are more Tsigan (Gypsie) groups than just Roma and Sinti. --146.60.151.80 (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Oświęcim - pamiętnik więżnia

The referenced document "Oświęcim - pamiętnik więżnia" is missing at WikiSource for unknown reason. Can someone please explain, remove the link or re-upload the document there?

PS. I have corrected ź to ż.

--146.60.151.80 (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I found it on the Polish Wikisource. Thank you for noticing this. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Picture change from Deutsche Bundesbahn to Deutsche Reichsbahn

The picture of the goods wagon is showing a painting lettering scheme of the Deutsche Bundesbahn which company are founded in 1949. The File:Grs Oppeln 8508.jpg

is painted in Deutsche Reichsbahn pattern and in that case more accurate and not connected with an "innocent" company. It will be nice if someone with the right rights can barter the files. Regrets --RAL1028 (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)