Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

map edits

Dear Ealdgyth,

Would you explain why do you consider it a second revert. It's the second version of the map. Please compare it in the change log. I would like to know what's wrong wiht this one. The first was bad because it did not focus on Auschwitz. Ok, I made it a focus point very much. The second was bad because it did not contain other camps. Let it be, I made it show other camps. That's why voila. Two revert rule does not apply here. Please be specific, what's wrong with the map. The one I am trying to hide is a ridiculous mess-up of times (was Belarus an accupied country during WW2?).

Best regards, --Sfu (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, one, your caption is not grammatical. The other issue is that the map you replaced uses 2007 borders, which for the reader of the article, are more useful in locating the camp. The 1942 map also has errors on it (gettos? Making Finland an Axis power? making the Channel island concentration camp of the Norwegian ones as "major concentration camps"??). And as a personal opinion, using star of davids for ghettos is ... tacky - but taht's a problem with both maps. At least the 2007 borders one isn't so prominent. one problem with both maps is that neither gives the source for the various selections of camps/ghettos/etc. Both need sourcing. I also like that the 2007 map gives massacre sites. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok. For 2007 borders, countries cannot be colored by axis/allies. It only oconfuses reades. Exact location is not tham important, it's not a tourist guide. More important is that using 1942 borders gives right background. You see the problem with Finland as country cooperating with axis, while showing Belarus and Ukraine as accupied countries is not a bigger problem. As for massacares, you see, sombody used a pirate sign here - no problem of tackiness with that? With sourcing, yep, indeed, no argument to revert my map since it's bases on the previous one. Serious staff: 1. label. If you want to be constructive please help me here. At leat tell me what's wrong. 2. David stars. I can chage those to some other sign. 3. no "major: before concentration camps. --Sfu (talk) 16:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Please see the new version of . If it satifies you. It is not perfect, but it is much better than the currently used confusing map. Btw Finland is as an axis power in the first map there. --Sfu (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Sfu, re: your map changes,[1][2][3] the current map is visually clearer (the colours, etc); Auschwitz is ringed; and it uses 2007 borders, so it's easier for readers to decipher. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

With every edition I fullfill the demans. Colors, ok. I can change them. Borders, ... current map is an absolute nosence and confusion, with allies, axis and deportations over 2007 borders. Why not make Napoleonic wars map over current polical map for a better orientation of a reader? I haven't saw that. How about a map with location of camp on the map of Europe in the template on the left? But the map in background section should be historical. Even if colors are not nice. --Sfu (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Sfu, I'm not sure what you mean. The point of the map is to make things easier for the reader. Here, in the Europe you know, the modern borders, is where the camps and ghettos were, and the camp with the ring around it is the subject of the article. You can see clearly how the other camps fed into it; for example, it's shocking to see how people were sent there from Drancy near Paris, and from Italy, Greece, etc. The light colours make it easier to decipher. The other suggested maps don't achieve all that. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I get that the arrows do not give enough contrast to your taste. But I said that I'll try to work on it. A hitorical map will achieve it and also it won't confuse a reader with modern borders. Bosnia and Herzegovina in WW2? Slovakia as occupied while it was an exemplary puppet state. By the small map in the template I ment a type of map used in articles about towns and places. --Sfu (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The modern borders are important. Otherwise it will be meaningless to most readers. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

That was an interesting technical task. I don't agree with moder borders in the background section. It may be in template: i.e. Battle of Marathon Battle of Stalingrad and plenty other have this solution. Armenian Genocide article is good without current maps. --Sfu (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said, the modern borders make the map more meaningful for readers. From your map, it isn't clear that Auschwitz was in Poland. It omits Maly Trostinets and Babi Yar; doesn't show Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia. We have no reason to display the world from the Nazi point of view. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Sarah. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

As I said, modern borders only confuse readers. Maybe we shold put a map of Roman Empire with modern borders as well ... because it's more meaningful to readers? Of course it is not clear that Auschwitz was in Poland, since it wasn't. It was in area directly annexed by Germany. Baltic countries did not exist in the end of 1942. My map shows clearly how it was possible to transport victims from Greece or France, because it puts the holocaust in true political context. And it's a matter of showing the actuall situation, not nazi point of view as you accuse me of (in fact a discusting attack from your side). Please see my sandbox. It perfectly shows the camp in the current political map so that a reader can see its location in the table on the right. At the same time, the section "background" shows the map with allies, axis powers and holocaus trains in the only political borders these things can be placed into - into historical borders. We can discuss details of the map, and I am able to make a lot of corrections. Yes it is alread better than the previous one. But, if you still don't like historical borders, then I guess, that it does not make sense for me to correct the map anyfurther. --Sfu (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Sfu, first, when I wrote "We have no reason to display the world from the Nazi point of view," I was referring to the map, not in any way to your opinion. The Polish government-in-exile, along with the rest of the world, continued to call their country Poland; see their 1942 report The Mass Extermination of Jews in German Occupied Poland. Similarly, we don't adopt Saddam Hussein's worldview and call Kuwait "Iraq" during the period of his invasion. We've had a discussion about this issue before on this page; as I recall, it was triggered by someone removing mention of Poland from the first paragraph. But the consensus was that there is no reason to remove that the camp was in Poland, although we make clear that it was a German camp and that Poland was occupied. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The border of Kuwait did not change after that war. It went back to it's prewar state. It's a very much different situation than with Poland. To my insentive, the amount of change between the prewar Polish state and the afterwar state was so massive, Jewish emigration to the West and seamless integration of those who have left being one of these things, that it's even hard to call it the same country. But it's my private opinion. Nervertheless, the borders of many countries has changed drastically, some countries disapeared, some where merged, split etc. Thus, the case of Kuwait is not a good comparison at all. Typical ww2 maps show Europe with thin prewar borders superimposed on color cleary indicatating German conquests of the time. However, these maps that are available at Commons usually do not show prewar borders (like the one I used as a background). The other version of the map that is currently used has all of these, except it is really of a bad quality with borders drawn, I guess, by hand and very incorrectly. I really have a hard time understanding how can you consider that it is helps a reader anyhow to show Belarus and Ukraine as occupied countries, show not existing then Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovakia as occupied country and all this confusion of two different moments in time. Just these errors should disqualify this map from use at all. Axis, allies and holocoust trains did not exist in 2007 but in 1939-1945 Showing these tings over 2007 borders is a grotesque nonsense. --Sfu (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Another thing is the use of pciture of reconstructed crematorium at Auschwitz I. May I change the current picture to my photo, which is much better composed. --Sfu (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Sfu, I don't mind if you swap the crematorium image. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:16, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Definite article

Further information: Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp/Archive 5 § Definite article in intro

It's pretty obvious that my views mean nothing, despite the fact I rarely see it referred to as "The" and either form is acceptable. So yes. Let's just leave it at that, despite the fact the previous discussion didn't actually gain any consensus (since only two people contributed to it), and this is obviously the most important thing to argue about in the article. --Tærkast (Discuss) 16:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, it's the first word, so not unimportant. "Auschwitz concentration camp" is a weak proper noun and it takes the definite article. For example:

Israel Gutman, et al. Anatomy of the Auschwitz Concentration Camp.

"the practical aspects of the functioning of the Auschwitz concentration camp" (p. 41).

"The Auschwitz concentration camp was established ..." (p. 272).

Chris Webb, The Auschwitz Concentration Camp: History, Biographies, Remembrance.

The New York Review of Books: "I walked into Block 24 at the Auschwitz concentration camp ..."

The Atlantic: "One of these is the Auschwitz concentration camp during World War II".

SarahSV ^(talk) 21:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Response

See this

I Was A Doctor in Auschwitz

[4]

People in Auschwitz

The Man Who Broke Into Auschwitz

Note the sentence structure here

I do believe the inclusion of the definite article makes it sound less natural, but what will be will be. I can probably bring up more and just as much if not more usage of the term without the definite article, but it is what it is. --Tærkast (Discuss) 16:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

2 cents - It is "in Auschwitz" but "in the Auschwitz Concentration/death/extermination// Camp" - you need to distinguish between the shorthand/colloquial form without "camp" (which doesn't receive a "the") and the form with "camp" (which does).Icewhiz (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps this will do? The museum doesn't use the definite article . Or Medical observations in Auschwitz concentration camp to name just a few. As I've said, I can pull plenty more examples, but if people want to keep it with a less natural flow, that's fine too. --Tærkast (Discuss) 16:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The examples you offer without "the" are headlines, or they are just using the name "Auschwitz". If you want to offer a real counter-example, you need to find RS that use the same syntax but without the definite article. I've offered above examples of news and scholarly sources. Another scholarly source is Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, Indiana University Press. Also Danuta Czech, "A Calendar of the Most Important Events in the History of the Auschwitz Concentration Camp", in a series published by the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum. Another title in those volumes is Irena Strzelecka and Piotr Setkiewicz, "Women in the Auschwitz Concentration Camp". SarahSV ^(talk) 22:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

My previous examples will suffice. It's obvious that your version is going to stay, regardless of how many examples I give or could give, and it certainly isn't worth getting worked up over. --Tærkast (Discuss) 15:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Monowitz - chapter is not there

it is important, that in auschwitz are the camp auschwitz-3-monowitz ... it was a concentration camp by the IG Farben, today IG Farben is BASF ...

Monowitz was a concentration camp in auschwitz with a size of 3 x 8 kilometers ... it was the largest european concentration camp ... it was built and leaded by the IG Farben, now BASF ...

there is no chapter about Monowitz, BASF and IG Farben ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:FA:5F06:3300:F943:3533:B30E:80E1 (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2019

To change "image=Auschwitz II-Birkenau, Oświęcim, Polonia - panoramio (20).jpg" to "image=Аушвиц II (Биркенау).jpeg" Www2018www (talk) 08:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I'm torn regarding your image. I like the colour better, but I think the framing indicates focus on the train tracks themselves rather than the entrance building.

I'm closing your edit request, not because your request is without merit, but because further input from the community is required. If consensus is reached for this change, please reopen this edit request. Melmann 12:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Www2018www, I've been intending to swap that image because it's a poor colour, not centred, and contains too many people. I'll make the swap now. I do like yours, but I would say there's too much track in it for a lead image; in addition, it doesn't look suitable next to that image of Auschwitz I. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

What is a 'functionary', in the context of the concentration camps?

In the second sentence of the second paragraph in the lead, what does the following phrase mean: "The first prisoners, German criminals brought to the camp as functionaries, arrived in May 1940,..."? That is, in the context of the concentration/extermination camps, what is a 'functionary'? Were they, as criminals, re-tasked as guards or kitchen workers or something? Perhaps this could be better worded or explained in the article. UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

That is a very good question. I have tagged the term for further explanation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi UnderEducatedGeezer. The term is explained in the 2nd paragraph here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ad Orientem, your reference is helpful, I should have continued reading further in the article! (I came to this article from a presentation of Redemption Road on MHz streaming, and was appalled that I couldn't remember the name of the infamous Nazi concentration camp, Auschwitz, so once I found that I didn't read too much further in this article.) The further details in the article mention Kapo, which further explains the use of the word functionary in the lead, also given that it was a translation from the German. Perhaps just adding Kapo in parenthesis after 'functionary' could make it clearer in the lead? UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Child survivors of Auschwitz.jpeg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

CORRECTION: Liberation of Auschwitz as alleged communists ... by the Red Army

Auschwitz was NEVER liberated by the Red Army.

Germans abandoned Auschwitz and Red Army entered tha "abandoned" camp claiming it liberated the camp.

Reference:

"Nobody liberated the camps or their prisoners. (...)

One can only speak of Red Army soldiers entering the death factories abandoned by the Germans."

"Lieutenant Colonel Kazimierz Kemmer aka Kruk, Halny, president of the Home Army History Museum Foundation for many years and deputy chairman of the Council of the Home Army Museum in Krakow General Emil Fieldorf "Nil", died ... in Krakow Two days after his 91 birthday on June 23, 2014. Col. Kazimierz Kemmer, a Home Army soldier, died at the age of 91 in Krakow .."

„Wremia pokażet” („Czas pokaże”)("Time will show")

Lieutenant Colonel Kazimierz Kemmer

Lieutenant Colonel Kazimierz Kemmer was awarded many state and departmental decorations, including The Cross of Valor, the Officer's Cross of the Order of Polonia Restituta, the Golden Cross of Merit, the Partisan Cross, the Home Army Cross, the Badge of the "Storm" Action, the Veteran's Patent, the Pro Memoria Medal, the Honoris Gratia Badge.'Bold text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1127:4C9D:332B:A650:D9BF:A8BC (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Not "liberated"

It is inappropriate to say the Soviets "liberated" Auschwitz considering they persecuted and murdered many Holocaust survivors, especially in the Rootless Cosmopolitan Campaign from 1946 to 1953. (86.159.61.130 (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC))

I disagree. At the time it was liberation. The Rootless cosmopolitan campaign only started three years later, in 1948? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• The rationale of the initial query is without merit and bizarre: first because anti-Semitism does not preclude liberation of Jews, secondly it would be irrelevant in case of liberated Roma/Sinti, etc. But anyway yes the Rootless Cosmopolitan Campaign had nothing to do with Auschwitz and in any case took place after Auschwitz was abandoned by Germany in early 1945. More to the point, where's the citation to support the rationale?

• Because there is a valid issue here. As one non-RS website has it: "On 27 Jan 1945, Soviet troops from the 100th Infantry Division discovered Auschwitz 11 days after the Germans abandoned it," [5] which actually reflects the generally accepted account in RS that the Soviets arrived 11 days after the Germans left - taking the vast majority of Auschwitz prisoners on the Death March to slave labour in Germany, so these were not liberated. Good sources can be found for that.

• So what we have here is a misnomer in very common usage; most sources use the word 'liberated' that describe something which would be more accurately described as 'discovered'. There may be a case for explaining this in the text, if the right sources can be found so as not to get into OR. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

No objection. I tend to agree. Even though the English-speaking world today marks the "75th Anniversary of the Liberation of Auschwitz". That is what is used in the name of the article Liberation of Auschwitz concentration camp and that is what is linked to the word liberated on today's Main page. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

New section to add on commemorations

I would like to add a section to this article on commeorations of Auschwitz . and specifically, i would begin this section by noting some of the ceremonies that occurred on January 27, 2020, in order to observe and commemorate the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by Allied units in World War II. I hope it's okay for me to do so? thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for checking here. I would oppose that. The article is already long, and a commemoration section, especially one that dwells on this year, would be WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE. You might consider creating a separate article on commemorations if it's something you think is of lasting interest. I'm not advising you to do this, just to be clear, but if you see those occasions as worth noting, then a separate article would certainly have enough news sources, and there have been a few controversies along the way. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Sarah here...Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Viktor Frankl

In the article it is suggested that Viktor Frankl was an Auschwitz survivor. I would like to quote form his article:

• In Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning the book devotes approximately half its contents to describing Auschwitz and the psychology of its prisoners, suggesting a long stay at the death camp, however his wording is contradictory and to Pytell (an academic), "profoundly deceptive", when rather the impression of staying for months, Frankl was held close to the train, in the "depot prisoner" area of Auschwitz and for no more than a few days, he was neither registered there (in Auschwitz), nor assigned a number before being sent on to a subsidiary work camp of Dachau, known as Kaufering III, that together with Terezín, is the true setting of much of what is described in his book.

It seems that Frankl was never a prisoner in Auschwitz and therefore cannot be called a survivor. JHvW 17:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's made clear at Viktor Frankl#"Auschwitz survivor" testimony. Since Auschwitz is mentioned mainly only in that section of his article, I think there may be a case for removing his name from the lead section and list of notable inmates here. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

If his name is removed, I would like to strongly suggest adding Hugo Gryn. Although this rabbi came to Auschwitz late in the war, he was a great communicator of the Holocaust. If Auschwitz is not to be forgotten, people like Gryn should also be remembered. JHvW 07:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The claim at Hugo Gryn is currently unsourced. It might be better if your request was moved to a separate thread? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

If there's to be swapping of names, please bear in mind the attention paid to the distribution. We currently have Burger (Slovakia); Frank (born in Germany, moved to Holland); Frankl (Austria); Kertész (Hungary); Kolbe (Poland); Levi (Italy); Löhner-Beda (born in what is now the Czech Republic, moved to Austria); Némirovsky (Russian Empire, now Ukraine); Pilecki (Russia, Polish cavalry officer); Stein (Germany, now Poland); Veil (France); Vrba and Wetzler (the area is now Slovakia); Wiesel (Romania); Ury (Germany).

As for whether Frankl should be included, I've looked through his book but have no recollection of it, and I haven't looked at the secondary sources, so I can't judge the claim that he misrepresented the Auschwitz time span. But even if it's true that he was there for days, he would also have spent days travelling in a freight train. Any encounter with Auschwitz and those journeys shouldn't be underestimated, so I would not rule someone out based on a short stay. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Is the intention to include only one notable person from each country, out of fairness? I tend to agree with you about the trauma probably experienced by any prisoner who was taken to Auschwitz, no mater how long they stayed. Many inmates were alive there only very briefly. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Martin, I wasn't thinking one each per country or anything rigid. Just hoping that we bear it in mind. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

This is all getting a bit out of hand. I would agree that Frankl was probably at Auschwitz at some point but he was not a prisoner there, so I do not think he qualifies as a survivor, but I do not want to belittle his experiences, they must have been terrifying. As to Hugo Gryn, I have included a reference. I am not Jewish and I was born after the Second World War, but I strongly believe that the atrocities should be remembered, if only because they should not happen again. My father lived in hiding during the war (his brother died in Dachau) and my mother was a POW (in Indonesia), you can imagine that I have very strong feelings about the war, but things should also be accurate. JHvW 20:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure many of us bring our own personal feelings and family history to topics such as this. But of course we must wholly set these aside. I see nothing here "getting a bit out of hand." I still think Hugo Gryn deserves separate discussion, in a separate thread. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Subject–verb–object

Dilidor has three times removed links (including internal article links) and changed almost all sentences in the lead to subject–verb–object: 27 Jan; 28 Jan; 29 Jan. Examples:

• After Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, sparking World War II, the Schutzstaffel (SS) converted Auschwitz I, an army barracks, into a prisoner-of-war camp for Polish political prisoners.

to:

Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, sparking World War II, and the Schutzstaffel (SS) converted Auschwitz I into a prisoner of war camp for Polish political prisoners.

• The first inmates, German criminals brought to the camp in May 1940 as functionaries, established the camp's reputation for sadism.

to:

The first inmates were German criminals brought to the camp as functionaries in May 1940, and they established the camp's reputation for sadism.

• Of the 1.3 million people sent to Auschwitz, 1.1 million died.

to:

1.3 million people were sent to Auschwitz, and 1.1 million died.

• At least 802 prisoners tried to escape, 144 successfully, and on 7 October 1944 two Sonderkommando units, consisting of prisoners who staffed the gas chambers, launched an unsuccessful uprising.

to:

At least 802 prisoners tried to escape, 144 successfully, and two Sonderkommando units launched an unsuccessful uprising on 7 October 1944 consisting of prisoners who staffed the gas chambers.

• As the Soviet Red Army approached Auschwitz in January 1945, toward the end of the war, the SS sent most of the camp's population west on a death march to camps inside Germany and Austria.

to:

The Soviet Red Army approached Auschwitz in January 1945 toward the end of the war, and the SS sent most of the camp's population west on a death march to camps inside Germany and Austria.

I'm pinging Tony1 for a third opinion. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I find the removal of links particularly useless, and the writing to be stilted with little flow. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The internal links issue is certainly open to debate. But kindly explain why you find it a problem to restructure sentences into correct grammatical and syntactical structure. —Dilidor (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Note that Dilidor is under a self-agreed 1RR restriction on removing wls, since the start of last year. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Dilidor, where is your evidence that your version is somehow the only "correct grammatical and syntactical structure"? Looking at the very first example above, you removed something and also changed the exact meaning. This is not just a matter of grammar. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Martinevans123, I do not see how I "changed the exact meaning" of the sentence in the first example above. Please elucidate. As to correct grammar and syntax, I have merely addressed a few issues, including initial dependent clauses and interruptive clauses. —Dilidor (talk) 15:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The original version tells us that the conversion of Auschwitz I occurred after Germany invaded Poland. Whereas your version suggests these events may have happened at the same time. You also removed "an army barracks", which also changed the meaning, i.e. it's a loss of meaning. Furthermore, I do not believe that one grammatical structure is necessarily "better" or "more correct"; they are just different alternatives, which may be more or less suitable for any given context. Please note that I do not have the time or inclination to examine all of the other examples that SarahSV has given above. But other editors may wish to do that. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Dilidor, repeating the same sentence structure over and over introduces a stilted quality. There were also changes of emphasis. For example, "The first inmates, German criminals brought to the camp in May 1940 as functionaries, established the camp's reputation for sadism." What matters in that sentence is "The first inmates established the camp's reputation for sadism." The zero-empathy environment was not a bug but a feature. From the other clause we learn that German criminals who were given roles of responsibility were responsible for this.

Your edit changed the emphasis: "The first inmates were German criminals brought to the camp as functionaries in May 1940, and they established the camp's reputation for sadism." This doesn't connect the two issues in quite the same way. There's much less of a sense that the criminals were brought to the camp for that purpose.

Another example: "the train track, in operation May–October 1944, led directly to the gas chambers". You changed this to "the train track led directly to the gas chambers, in operation May–October 1944". That changed the meaning from the track to the gas chambers being in operation for a limited period. You changed this in your later edits to "the train track led directly to the gas chambers and was in operation May–October 1944", which is accurate but stilted. What was wrong with the original? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The original was best, and Dildor's edit carelessly changed the meaning. Dildor, do be more careful. Tony (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I was pinged above days ago and I'm sorry to have lagged in arriving (it's partly because of the enormity of the subject). I like some of the changes Dildor has made, but each example needs scrutiny to identify any undesirable changes of meaning. I can see that Dildor doesn't like what s/he perceives as "bumpiness" in sentence structure. In some cases there may be better ways of achieving what s/he intends. I wonder whether people are OK about the third option here (the first two I've duplicated from the top of the thread):

• After Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, sparking World War II, the Schutzstaffel (SS) converted Auschwitz I, an army barracks, into a prisoner-of-war camp for Polish political prisoners.

to:

Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, sparking World War II, and the Schutzstaffel (SS) converted Auschwitz I into a prisoner of war camp for Polish political prisoners.

After Germany sparked World War II by invading Poland in September 1939, the Schutzstaffel (SS) converted Auschwitz I into a prisoner-of-war camp for Polish political prisoners.

There's no avoiding subtle changes of meaning when sentence structure is changed; so the question is whether a change damages accuracy. I must say, the linking at first glance is skilled (very focused targets); and I'm a zealot for minimising linking. Tony (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

PS: This sentence in the lead is unclear to me: "The first inmates, German criminals brought to the camp in May 1940 as functionaries, established the camp's reputation for sadism. Prisoners were beaten, tortured, and executed for the most trivial reasons." So we have "inmates", "functionaries", and "prisoners". I think I can guess who's who: the functionaries were in effect prisoners, but not those who were beaten, tortured, and exectured, right? Tony (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC) PPS: The nerd in me picks up typographical inconsistencies: Auschwitz II–Birkenau at the top (en dash, looks fine); but Auschwitz II-Birkenau (hyphen) in section titles. If the dash can be found occasionally in the sources, WP would probably go with it here. But we need to decide. Tony (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Tony1, thanks for these replies. The article had an internal link to "functionaries" but Dilidor removed it. The functionaries were prisoners who were given supervisory roles; they were the ones doing the beating. "Inmates" and "prisoners" are the same thing. Re: hyphen, I don't know what most sources do; I'll look around. I think a hyphen is correct. The two elements aren't equal; Birkenau was a subcamp of Auschwitz.

I like your third example: "After Germany sparked World War II by invading Poland ..." but it would need "an army barracks": "After Germany sparked World War II by invading Poland in September 1939, the Schutzstaffel (SS) converted Auschwitz I, an army barracks, into a prisoner-of-war camp for Polish political prisoners." SarahSV ^(talk) 03:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

First mass transport of Jews to Auschwitz—failed verification

According to what SV quoted on this talk page, the source cited for the 15 February transport doesn't state that it was a mass transport. It does say "first" but I'm not sure that's even accurate, given that Longerich says that may have happened earlier: "There is a series of indications that even before the end of the year [1941] several smaller groups of Jews were also murdered in Auschwitz with Zyklon B; presumably they were the ones who had been selected from the Schmelt camps as no longer fit for work." (Longerich 2010, p. 181) Furthermore, we have two sources that cite the a different transport as being the first "mass" one. The article could be edited to fix the problem as follows: buidhe 01:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The first transports of Jews to Auschwitz may have occurred in late 1941, possibly forced-laborers who had been selected to die at Organization Schmelt camps. On 15 February 1942, Jews arrived from Beuthen and were immediately killed.(same source already cited) Systematic deportations of Jews to Auschwitz began on 26 March, with a transport of 999 Jewish women from Poprad transit camp in Slovakia.

References

Buidhe has created a new article that I'm discussing with her at Talk:First mass transport of Jews to Auschwitz concentration camp, because I feel it might be inaccurate. It's inappropriate of her to have brought the discussion here so that it's taking place on two pages. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I hardly think so, because what I'm proposing here is a concrete change that would eliminate failed verification on this page. That can't be fixed on another page. buidhe 02:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Postwar

Why does the article not mention that the Soviets continued to use Birkenau as a concentration camp after World War II for their political prisoners in Poland? (86.160.157.30 (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC))

Good point! A strange lack of this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.109.33.131 (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Siemens in Auschwitz

In most concentration camps in europe and also in the concentration camps in auschwitz are electric fences ... the kz prisoners can not escape, because the electric fence was set under high voltage ... if a kz prisoner touch the electric fence, he is instant dead ...

the electric fence in most concentration camps and also the electric fence of auschwitz were set under high voltage by a electric generator ... there in europe is only 1 firm, that builds electric generators ... and that is siemens ...

this is 1 point, that you must know about siemens ...

the 2. point about siemens is, that siemens is, that siemens had a production monopol on trains ... all trains that were used in germany and poland, from the monarch age until today, are built by siemens ... the jews were sent to auschwitz by siemens built trains ...

the 3. point about siemens is, that siemens had a factory in auschwitz, the concentration camp bobrek, a sub camp of auschwitz

the 4. point about siemens is, that siemens paid hitlers political rise ...

this is, what you must know about Siemens ...

there are a lot of firms, which were involved in the holocaust... siemens, flick, ig farben, thyssen, krupp, volkswagen, bmw, porsche, basf, degesch ...

you can read more about firms on List of subcamps of Auschwitz ...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:FA:5F0A:7700:E116:9F4F:B063:A562 (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

today siemens is one of the most powerful firms of the world ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:FA:5F0A:7700:E116:9F4F:B063:A562 (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

firms and the holocaust

here is the list of the firms, which were involved in the holocaust ...

Firms in the Holocaust

all of these firms, basf, bayer, vw, krupp, etc were involved in auschwitz and the holocaust ... {— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:fa:5f06:200:2482:b13f:f655:b072 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Numbers

We have fancy table with Nationality/ethnicity, but I cannot see how many Hungarian Jews or Polish Jews perished in Auschwitz from that table. Chaim 37.47.162.205 (talk) 14:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

That information is in the paragraph beneath the table. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:35, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

In the aside to the right, titled "Auschwitz", there is a section about notable inmates and notable books. I would like to add Dr. Edith Eger under notable inmates and her book, The Choice under notable books. Dr. Edith Eger , a Jewish native of Hungary, was sent to Auschwitz with her family in 1944 when she was just a teenager. Her bravery allowed her and her sister to survive and they were liberated from Auschwitz by the United States soldiers in May 1945. Here is a link to her biography from her website, https://dreditheger.com/about/. She has gone on to become a world renowned psychologists and author and she has been the keynote speaker for military troops returning from Afghanistan, military chaplains, and school children all over the world.

At the age of 90, years after earning her Ph.D in Psychology and becoming a notable psychologists while residing in the United States, she released her first book, The Choice and it is a memoir and inspiring book that chronicles her life in during the war, her experience in Auschwitz, and her life afterwards. Here is a link to her book The Choice: https://www.amazon.com/Choice-Dr-Edith-Eva-Eger/dp/1501130781. Her book has been featured on the Oprah Winfrey show and has won many awards.

Please add Edith Eger as a notable inmates of the Auschwitz camps and her book "The Choice" under notable books. Please let me know if you need anything else.

Melymay123 (talk) 23:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The use of the term "Notable" on Wikipedia has a slightly different meaning than it does is regular English. Please see the policy on Notability for more information but the upshot is this: the person needs to have been covered in significant detail by sources that are reliable and independent of the subject. While Dr. Eger may well qualify under that standard, there is not yet an article or sources that demonstrate this. If you want to create an article about Dr. Eger and then request inclusion here that may work better but I strongly suggest reading Your First Article first. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Heinrich Himmler, IG Farben Auschwitz plant, July 1942.jpeg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

IG Farben (BASF/Bayer/Hoechst) in Auschwitz

The chemical firm BASF controlled the concentration camp IG Auschwitz ... IG Auschwitz is a chemical factory, 3km x 8km tall, built by BASF(IG Farben)

The BASF leaded the chemical part of the IG Farben ... Here are some BASF-Managers, who were involved in Auschwitz and the holocaust ...

Carl Wurster leaded the zyklon b production at Degesch... he was in Auschwitz ... after world war 2 carl wurster became CEO at BASF ...

Heinrich Buetefisch was a manager at basf ... in the year 1920 heinrich buetefisch started at BASF and in the year 1925 he became an section leader at BASF ... He leaded the fuel production at the IG Farben factory in Auschwitz ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:FA:5F03:FD00:9133:1DA4:5A75:3006 (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Firms in Auschwitz

There were a lot of firms in Auschwitz, which were involved in the holocaust ...

the BASF (part of IG Farben) for example built the chemical factory in auschwitz, 3km x 8km = 24km² size ... largest chemical factory of the world ...

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/list-of-major-companies-involved-in-the-concentration-camps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:FA:5F1E:A200:3C8F:513C:63A:50F7 (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

See this sub-section and the daughter article listed at the top of it. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:05, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

United Nations - in 1942?

""The Mass Extermination of Jews in German Occupied Poland", a paper issued by the Polish government-in-exile addressed to the United Nations, 1942"

Caption to a picture in Section Resistance, escapes, liberation. - But, as is generally known, the United Nations were founded only in 945. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:C10F:8400:CC83:5978:CCB5:E36F (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Right. I believe the explanation is that "Governments of the United Nations" does not not mean members of the organization founded in 1945. It means the nations united against Germany, popularly called "the Allies". Here is a 1943 American usage of the phrase in that way. Zero^talk 12:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Polish name

Batreeq, I'm going to remove that name again, and I ask that you respect WP:BRD and seek consensus before restoring it. I'm not sure it should even be in the infobox, because I don't think that was the Polish name for it. The Polish name would have contained Oświęcim, not Auschwitz, so you need to find a contemporaneous source.

But even with a source, there is no need for it in the first sentence. We have the English name because this is the English Wikipedia and the German name because that was its official name. That's enough. See MOS:LEADCLUTTER. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Correct, the Polish name is Oświęcim, not Auschwitz. - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Names in infobox

GizzyCatBella, I removed the recent addition because he really isn't well-known for anything beyond that one act, and there was talk some time ago of trying to reduce the size of that list anyway. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The aim was to represent a mix of nationalities. It's currently three Slovak (Adolf Burger, Rudolf Vrba, Alfred Wetzler (Wetzler isn't well-known, but he and Vrba acted together); two Austrian (Viktor Frankl, Fritz Löhner-Beda); two German Edith Stein, Else Ury); two Polish (Maximilian Kolbe, Witold Pilecki); one Hungarian (Imre Kertész); one Ukrainian (Irène Némirovsky); one French (Simone Veil); one Romanian (Elie Wiesel); one Dutch (Anne Frank); one Italian (Primo Levi).

I've considered removing Wetzler, so we don't have three Slovak. He was upset at being so overshadowed by Vrba, which is why I've left it, but that's probably not a good reason given the limited space of an infobox. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Got it, makes sense. - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 April 2021

I think the successful escape on April 5, 1944, by Siegfried Lederer and Viktor Pestek, should be mentioned in the section “Escapes, Auschwitz Protocols”. Given that the escape has its own lengthy article, which was recently featured on the front page, I believe the incident is notable enough to merit a mention in this section. A suggested change is below, with the added part in bold.

Four Polish prisoners—Eugeniusz Bendera (serial number 8502), Kazimierz Piechowski (no. 918), Stanisław Gustaw Jaster (no. 6438), and Józef Lempart (no. 3419)—escaped successfully on 20 June 1942. After breaking into a warehouse, three of them dressed as SS officers and stole rifles and an SS staff car, which they drove out of the camp with the fourth handcuffed as a prisoner. They wrote later to Rudolf Höss apologizing for the loss of the vehicle. On April 5, 1944, Czech Jew Siegfried Lederer escaped with Viktor Pestek, a disillusioned SS guard. Lederer attempted to warn Jews in the Theresienstadt Ghetto, but was unsuccessful. He and Pestek returned to the camp to rescue more prisoners, but failed, with Pestek being caught and later executed. On 21 July 1944, Polish inmate Jerzy Bielecki dressed in an SS uniform and, using a faked pass, managed to cross the camp's gate with his Jewish girlfriend, Cyla Cybulska, pretending that she was wanted for questioning. Both survived the war. For having saved her, Bielecki was recognized by Yad Vashem as Righteous Among the Nations. Jogarz1921 (talk) 06:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Hi Jogarz, good idea. I'll add something when I have time to check whether the sourcing is already in the article. Thank you, SarahSV ^(talk) 22:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

"Restore images"

I changed some images with edit summary "Image changes: (1) Move File:Map of Auschwitz and environs, 1944.jpg from Background to infobox; (2) replace File:Concentration camps in occupied Europe (2007 borders).png with File:WW2-Holocaust-Europe.png -- wrapped in {{Image frame}} {{Superimpose}} to add a circle around Auschwitz. Clunky but I think WW2 borders is worth it.", and SlimVirgin effectively reverted with edit summary "restore images". I'm sure there was a good reason for the revert, but might I request that it be made public? jnestorius^(talk) 16:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

There were several reasons for the revert. (1) Adding a third image to the infobox wasn't an improvement, especially when it's a map that readers would have to click on to see properly. (2) The 2007 borders for the concentration-camp map were chosen to make it easier for readers to make sense of; the 1942 map is linked in the caption for comparison. (3) The red circle you added isn't there when the map you added is clicked on and most needed; the current map doesn't have that problem. (4) The changes included increasing the size of one map, disturbing the visual integrity of the page, which consists of a series of images of roughly the same size, several within the multiple-image template. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: thanks for responding.

• I can't imagine how the 2007 borders make it easier for readers than the contemporary borders. This is not a locator map. I can't find any relevant MOS for or against the point, but it seems to me that, within Wikipedia as elsewhere, contemporary maps are and ought to be standard for explaining historical events.
• On another note, I see you also restored the five "See also" links in the Background section. Five is a lot and they are already linked in the running text. I don't think any of them relates sufficiently closely to the topic for there to be much benefit in the extra emphasis of a see-also. Of course these five do give background information, but so do many other articles; why highlight these five in particular?

jnestorius^(talk) 16:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I've posted a note on talk about the arbitration remedy and sourcing in case you're not aware of it. If you have an appropriate source showing the 1942 map is accurate (and when in 1942), I'm happy to look at it. As for the links in the background section, they're "further information" links, not see also, and "why highlight these five", I'd have thought it obvious. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

OK, so we can drop the "easier for readers" argument. As regards sourcing expectations, I'm not sure the sources for the 2007 map are much better ("using information from USHMM & Wikipedia"). If the sources in the 1942 map are inadequate for showing the picture in this article, are they not also inadequate for linking to it in the caption to the 2007 map? Other articles, currently showing the 1942 map, will need to remove it per the same arbitration, e.g. Sobibor extermination camp.

At a minimum it is not obvious to me why Declarations of war during World War II is more worth highlighting than Wannsee Conference, or Adolf Hitler's rise to power more than Nazism.

jnestorius^(talk) 19:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what this means: "so we can drop the 'easier for readers' argument". I haven't dropped it. I try to focus on the reader all the time. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

How would Wannsee Conference be part of the background? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: I've just noticed that I got this article mixed up with The Holocaust when I wrote the above. My apologies. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I am sure we both focus on the readers. My contention is that a map showing the 1942 borders would be more helpful for readers of this article than a map showing the 2007 borders. I understood from point #2 in your original 4-point comment that you had the opposite opinion; I understood from your 12 April comment that you were not pressing this point. Perhaps I misunderstood one or both comments. jnestorius^(talk) 15:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion revival (archive 6): Polish name

Further information: Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp/Archive 6 § Polish name

The Polish name per the official website is "Obóz koncentracyjny Auschwitz". – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

That's the museum. It wasn't a Polish camp. It was a German camp. That's why we have the German name in the first sentence. There's no need to mention a third language there. Anything else can go in the infobox. See MOS:LEAD about avoiding clutter. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. Auschwitz was a German-run camp located in Poland. Therefore, the Polish name is relevant. It is permissible to list more than one additional language in the introduction; for example, Ethiopia lists six. The name cited to the museum which represents the establishment is certainly more reliable than a conjectured one using "Oświęcim". – Batreeq ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 01:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The issue of whether a Polish name should be added is interesting and I need to thinka about this further, but there is a major technical problem: what is the Polish name of this entity? TL;DR - I think there is no "one" name, and the entity is known under numerous synonyms. Polish people, colloquially, refer to this entity using the Polish, not German, town name ("Obóz koncentracyjny w Oświęcimiu"), simply b/c everyone knows the Polish name of the town, but only people interested in history know the German one. That said, pl wiki article is at pl:Auschwitz-Birkenau. German is at de:KZ Auschwitz. A review of Polish media and literature suggests both Polish and German names are used, to determine if there is a preferred, modern pattern or trend, more analysis would be needed. Sample Polish academic article using Oświęcim, sample one using Auschwitz. Anyway, in addition to Oświęcim vs Auschwitz (vs Auschwitz-Birkenau, as many Polish sources prefer to use A-B rather than just A name), there is also the usual issue of "concentration camp" vs "death camp" issue, just in Polish ("obóz koncentracyjny" vs "obóz zagłady", "obóz śmierci", maybe something else too). Oh, and re op, I think "Obóz koncentracyjny w Auschwitz" would be more grammatically correct than "Obóz koncentracyjny Auschwitz", but it is less popular (shrug). A plethora of minor variants due to Polish grammar make any search more complex than in English :( Not using the Polish name may be a reasonable way to avoid headache with determining what Polish name to use... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Poland had no reason to name it at the time. Their relationship with it was that Poles were held there. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Hans Frank - NSDAP-politician, who were a main organisator of the holocaust

the main organisator of the holocaust was Hans Frank, a jurist, who made a political career in the nsdap and the judiciary ...

hans frank was the general governor of the german occupied poland ... all, that happened in poland, was coordinated and organised by Hans Frank ... also auschwitz is in poland ... hans frank was the main governor of auschwitz ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:fa:5f1b:df00:5c80:65e2:9739:e70c (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Auschwitz was not in the General Government, it was in an area of Poland annexed to Germany. DuncanHill (talk) 00:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Firms involved in Auschwitz and the Holocaust

please write in the article which companies were involved in auschwitz ...

siemens - built the trains of the german reichsbahn, with which jews were deported to auschwitz ... the auschwitz bobrek concentration camp was a company owned by siemens ... maybe siemens also built the electricity generator of the concentration camps in auschwitz ... with those of the electrically charged fence was energized ...

degussa - was involved in degesch, the cyclone b manufacturer

IG Farben - built the chemical factory IG Auschwitz in Auschwitz ... largest chemical factory in the world ... today the IG colors are split up again into BASF and Bayer ...

krupp - bought forced laborers from auschwitz to work in the krupp factory in essen ...

here is a list of many companies that were involved in auschwitz ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust

is in English, the website should be written in translated form ... (unsigned article from 2003: FA: 5F0A: AC00: B108: CD06: F676: 32A6 (discussion) 01:08, 25 Dec. 2021 (CET ))

Of the 1,000 most powerful companies in Europe, the majority were involved in auschwitz and the holocaust ...

the vw group built the vw bucket that the police had used to persecute jews ... vw employed tens of thousands of forced laborers ...

opel built the opel blitz, which was used in the blitz war against poland ... police battalons used the opel blitz to deport Jews to concentration camps ... so opel was also involved in the holocaust ...

junkers, focke wulf, messerschmidt, heinkel and horten are companies that helped the nazis with their planes to conquer territories and thus these companies were involved in the holocaust ...

There are very many companies that were involved in the holocaust, auschwitz or the nazi regime ... it would be too much for me to write them all down here ...

click here ...

"...junkers, focke wulf, messerschmidt, heinkel and horten are companies that helped the nazis with their planes to conquer territories and thus these companies were involved in the holocaust" Does a reliable source draw this conclusion? Also, this article is about a specific camp, so it;s hardly relevant to that. (Hohum ^@) 01:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Firm Managers in Auschwitz

Fritz ter Meer was a manager at bayer, who produced aspirin ... fritz ter meer leaded the human experiments in auschwitz ... fritz ter meer infused typhus to auschwitz prisoners and tested firm made medicaments from bayer ...

Heinrich Bütefisch was a manager from the firm BASF ... in 1920 heinrich bütefisch joined BASF ... in auschwitz heinrich bütefisch leaded the fuel production since 1941 ...

Christian Schneider was a BASF manager and the factory leader of the IG Farben Factory in Auschwitz ...

Friedrich Jaehne was a Hoechst firm manager and wehrwirtschaftsfuehrer ... He and the firm Hoechst was involved in the gas executions in auschwitz ...

Carl Wurster was a chemicist at the firm BASF ... Carl wurster leaded the zyklon b production ... carl wurster was a NSDAP member ...

Walter Duerrfeld was an IG Farben firm member from Leuna ... he was in auschwitz as an representant from the IG farben concern ...

Hermann Schmitz was a Member of the firm BASF and was a CEO at IG Farben ... he was involved in Auschwitz ... Hermann Schmitz leaded the build from the concentration camp Auschwitz-3-Monowitz ...

The Firms BASF and Bayer never was denazified ...

Nazi-Firms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:FA:5F0A:AC00:B108:CD06:F676:32A6 (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles need WP:RELIABLE sources for information to be included, not your opinion. (Hohum ^@) 01:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

firms, who are involved in auschwitz ... you can read it here

https://subcamps-auschwitz.org/companies/

auschwitz has 50 subcamps ... all sub camps of auschwitz were owned by firms ... auschwitz was a firm location ... in german firmenstandort ...

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2018 and 4 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chloe24681234.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

there is nothing about BASF in this article

the BASF was a part of ig farben and has controlled the chemical factory 8km x 3km size, largest chemical factory of the world ... together with bayer, what was also a part of the firm ig farben ...

wrote that in the article, it is very important ... everyone should know, what chemical companies like BAYER and BASF has done ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:FA:5F0C:5F00:4C4C:E8E4:45F1:C3B7 (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Wording in lead

There appears to be a simple grammatical mistake in the following text found in the lead:

The initial transport of political detainees to Auschwitz consisted nearly solely of Poles to whom the camp was initially established.

This should probably read "for whom" 107.202.75.102 (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

•  Fixed Good catch. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2022

Add Dr. Edith Eva Eger to Notable Inmates list; add The Choice: Embrace the Possible (2017) by Dr. Edith Eva Eger to the Notable Books list LG2009 (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done I have added Edith Eger as a notable inmate in the infobox. But her book, The Choice: Embrace the Possible, does not have its own article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The "Camps" section

This seems mistitled - it focuses on the history of the camps. A title like "camps" suggests a focus on matter other than a chronological timeline of events. It could perhaps be renamed something like "Establishment" and a shorter "Camps" section added that gives a brief overview of things like location, layout, construction dates, etc. for each of the camps.

I also note there's no explanation of why Auschwitz II-Birkenau was named Birkenau - presumably because of its location, but the article doesn't explicitly say that. Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Use of corpses

Clarity could be improved on this sentence: "The work was carried out by members of the Sonderkommando who were dentists; anyone overlooking dental work might themselves be cremated alive." I assume that it means any person who missed finding precious metals could find themselves cremated alive. There is no edit buttons so I'm guessing the article is locked. .≈≈ sydtrolls — Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Misleading introductory sentence on the invasion of Poland

I know this is an article on the Auschwitz concentration camp which was created and run by Nazi Germany, but "After Germany sparked World War II by invading Poland in September 1939" is misleading in ignoring the fact that the Soviet Union joined Germany in invading Poland (and starting World War II). The Wikipedia article on that subject at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland clearly describes the joint invasion in the first sentence, and the Auschwitz article would be improved by using the same language. I suggest, "After Germany and the Soviet Union sparked World War II by invading Poland in September 1939..."

Thanks for considering. 158.111.236.40 (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

World War II is considered to have started on 1 September 1939, when Germany invaded Poland. Mellk (talk) 20:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Quite so, it was the German invasion of Poland which led to the British and French declarations of war. Neither declared war on the USSR. DuncanHill (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that's clear. Thanks for the clarification. 158.111.236.40 (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. That's more specific than the current language (the Soviet Union invaded on 17 September), so could the language in the article be made more specific? "After Germany sparked World War II by invading Poland on 1 September 1939..." 158.111.236.40 (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Auschwitz_2.0.jpg

Hello!

Mitte27, could you please comment your "evidence of permission" request for the foto "Auschwitz 2.0.jpg" ?

As you may see, currently the source of the foto is specified, with attribution to oswiecim.naszemiasto.pl.

Moreover, freedom of panorama practice could be also taken to the consideration. Happy Merry Stalin Strait (talk) 12:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2024

In the first paragraph of the "Growth" section, change "Fifty km southwest" to "Fifty kilometers southwest" and "Around 1,000 m long and 400 m wide" to "Around 1,000 meters long and 400 meters wide". This follows Wikipedia's manual of style on unit names and symbols, which states that unit names should be given in full when writing in prose. Felz1 (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Convert templates added. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)