Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:11, 15 November 2016

Auschwitz concentration camp has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 30, 2013. (Reviewed version).

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jewish history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Poland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. World Heritage Sites High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject World Heritage Sites, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of World Heritage Sites on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.World Heritage SitesWikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage SitesTemplate:WikiProject World Heritage SitesWorld Heritage Sites High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Correction and Detention Facilities (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities Military history: European / German / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  European military history task force German military history task force World War II task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on March 26, 2004, January 27, 2005, January 27, 2006, January 27, 2007, January 27, 2008, January 27, 2011, January 27, 2013, and January 27, 2015.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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 , 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

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 22:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

References

1. Langbein, Hermann. 1994. Against All Hope: Resistance in the Concentration Camps. Translated by H. Zohn. New York: Paragon House.
2. Maher, Thomas V. "Threat, Resistance, and Collective Action: The Cases of Sobibór, Treblinka, and Auschwitz." American Sociological Review 75, no. 2 (2010): 266.

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

1. Rees 2005, p. 251. sfn error: no target: CITEREFRees2005 (help)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 13:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

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

• your statement "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 "t is not our job to judge who is correct" is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages policy, as WP:CONSENSUS "does not mean... nor is it the result of a vote".

2. The Diannaa's statement above "here's a difference of opinion among scholars as to the death toll at Auschwitz" automatically disqualified their output for the Misplaced Pages 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 - "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 (" primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts..." which the number of dead is). Thus, according to above mentioned Misplaced Pages'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 "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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages's position. Misplaced Pages is not a subject to personal WP:OWNERSHIP. Please, do follow the Misplaced Pages's rules.--Logicalgenius3 (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• History good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class Jewish history-related articles
• High-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• GA-Class Human rights articles
• High-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• GA-Class Germany articles
• High-importance Germany articles
• WikiProject Germany articles
• GA-Class Poland articles
• High-importance Poland articles
• WikiProject Poland articles
• GA-Class World Heritage Sites articles
• High-importance World Heritage Sites articles
• GA-Class military history articles
• GA-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• GA-Class German military history articles
• German military history task force articles
• GA-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• GA-Class Death articles
• High-importance Death articles
• Selected anniversaries (March 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (January 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (January 2006)
• Selected anniversaries (January 2007)
• Selected anniversaries (January 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (January 2011)
• Selected anniversaries (January 2013)
• Selected anniversaries (January 2015)
• GA-Class Nazi Germany articles