Jump to content

Talk:Majdanek concentration camp

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Majdanek)

Number of victims: source

[edit]

The number of victims I have put in comes from the page: http://majdanek.pl/en/oboz.htm

It is the official website of the Majdanek State Museum, so I think the numbers are reliable and up to date.

One can also consult http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/text/x15/xm1554.html

which contains the entry from Encyclopedia of the Holocaust published in 1990. Balcer 07:10, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll

[edit]

This is mostly for Phaedriel. New data necessitates new revisions. The new data is Tomasz Kranz's research. The source (Kranz's article) is listed. I will also add this article to the sources:

http://en.auschwitz.org/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=44&Itemid=8

If you have any objections - make your own changes, don't revert. --84.167.24.211 22:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Polish page already has this info. --84.167.24.211 23:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised to see Kranz's work make it into wiki. However, reading his revised numbers I notice that he is very quite as to how the deaths accurred. In the cited article I assume the shaded info is not Kranz's but instead a zealot who "added" a bit = probably stuff that is uncitable. Kranz implies everything except gassing, etc ( murder) - any cite where he gives a fuller expounding of his research? His work is now a few years old - took some time to get to the mainstream - anyone know the reason, I would think this would be History Channel worthy at least. It appeared he used German sources(among others), which makes one wonder how many, where,extensive,.. etc these sources are for all the Polish "extermination" camps. This new revised data seems to be being released gradually to let us get used to the new reality. Any links to Kranz's original work?159.105.80.141 (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are clearly problems with the numbers. Supposedly the first 20,000 inmates all died (were not killed)- primarily due to typhus. Yet I presume that the sentence reading: "59,000 (of 78,000 altogether) were killed in Majdanek" means 19,000 died of "natural" causes, and 59,000 were murdered. As the camp operated for some years after the initial 20,000 died, the figures are wrong somewhere. In the absence of other estimates, I would suggest that the number killed is too high, and the number who died of natural causes is too low. Also, given the relatively low number killed - no more than 20% of all inmates - this has to be described as a concentration or labour camp, rather than as an extermination camp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.53.194 (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to this researcher the death toll is about 45,000 based on 8 wartime documents: https://www.bitchute.com/video/giTlJmuAsMR5/.

Gas Chambers

[edit]

I came to this page from the Zyklon B page which features a picture on the right of a Soviet soldier supposedly posing above the ceiling vent of a Majdanek gas chamber, yet this article makes no mention of a gas chamber in Majdanek or execution by gassing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.177.79 (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to 'Majdanek extermination camp'?

[edit]

This article should be moved to Majdanek extermination camp, I think, to be consistent with the article titles for Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka and Chelmno, which are all redirects to '(name) extermination camp'. I understand that it started as a POW/concentration camp, but the single most notable thing about it (IMO) is that it was used for gassing, so should be titled as an extermination camp. Any objections? --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About renaming:
This is my first posing on something like this.
Just as you mentioned, Majdanek started as a POW/concentration camp and then later an extermination camp, makes labeling it as an extermination camp a journalistic "no no". By adding labels next to names we distort the readers mindset about a particular name and create a mental bias. For example look at CNN's sensation seeking headlines and spin when taling about Milosevic as "The Butcher of the Balkans" at http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/03/11/milosovic/index.html I don't know who came up with that tag line but that is not the way to report facts. Or how about the phrase "Axis of Evil", it takes away from facts about those countries and the conflict by labeling and name calling. That is why I would be against the labeling of Majdanek as "Majdanek extermination camp" it takes away from the name Majdanek and adds a preconcieved label to the name. If there were two Majdaneks and they could be a misunderstanding as to which one we are talking about then I would suggest Majdanek (Lublin). Take care. [Comment by Piatkowski on July 3, 2006, unsigned; attribution retrieved from page history]
Advise against: There is no requirement for consistency across articles, e.g. names of camps with similar purposes such as extermination camps. An article's name derives from its particular topic.Majdanek is a unique name for a Nazi camp, so no need to disambiguate for a place name. However, its having served several purposes — as indicated in the content — argues against additional qualification being added to the article's name. Doing so would cause more problems than it would solve, besides being inappropriate for the content. -- Hope this helps, Deborahjay 21:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Advise for: The issue is not one of consistency, but of accuracy. The camp was used to exterminate people. This was the main use of the camp. In Majdanek people were not merely "concentrated", they were exterminated. Therefore it is an extermination camp. Calling it a concentration camp misrepresents the history of the place.
This is not up to us Wikipedians to decide, we have to go with what reputable sources say. The US Holocaust Museum website identifies Majdanek as a concentration camp (see here) . JustSomePics (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And it continues, viz., "We ask you, humbly, to help.", while there remains nothing humble about wiki. - 100.14.80.135 (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial

[edit]

It looks like a huge structure, I think there should be an article. --HanzoHattori 16:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is massive, and interesting. Hope we can get a picture. It doesn't deserve its own article though. 131.94.169.118 04:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a photo of the memorial to the gallery. Signalhead 19:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

[edit]

I've got a ton of pictures from my trip to Majdanek. Do we need any more?

I think it's worth putting in a picture of the soviet memorial there, or the camp and the memorial in one frame. I know some of my friends have this picture, I'll see if they'll release it under a free license.131.94.169.118 04:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


David Irving recently went here I believe. There is a picture showing him looking at the Prussian blue stains on the ceiling - which some researchers say are impossible because the blue is from paint ( I know it gets really confusing - Cracow Institute, Green, Rudolf, Leuchter, etc). The worst part of the picture is that he is standing next to a window - one pane glass - shoulder height. 159.105.80.141 17:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article says the crematorium was destroyed - the pictures show a totally intact building. Were there several?159.105.80.141 17:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the place itself, the furnaces are not labeled as being replicas, as they are at the one gas chamber at Auschwitz-I. I assume that means they are real, although some scholarly confirmation would be nice.131.94.169.118 04:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The wooden walls of the building were burnt down but the furnaces themselves were not destroyed. There are photos on the Internet showing the building in this condition. The building was subsequently rebuilt. Signalhead 23:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?

[edit]

Refreshing to see an encyclopedia article almost devoid of citations - 2 at the very end. Any further info on the death march and those left behind - there appears to have been little effort to "cover their tracks" but also almost no evidence - at least what I have been able to find ( help )- of much beyond a work camp. Any forensic work? etc
If you want some documentation - maybe??? - look up Jolanta Gajowniczek ( a Polish historian). It appears the health conditions were falling to pieces there. TB patients had been shipped there, typhus was spreading, dysentary, ... A hospital was built, doctors were reasigned from other camps, the Red Cross vaccinated for typhus, .... 159.105.80.141 (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC) The article says that the camp was closed in April 1944 but people were being killed into July 1944 - I don't have any suggestion as to how but maybe someone can suggest something ( not critsizing this piece of info - it makes as much sense as the rest).[reply]
This Jolanta's book is available on Amazon. It is somewhat self-contradictory but interesting anyhow. She is confused as to whether typhus vaccine came in the front door with the Red Cross ( she says yes in one place) or came in by the back door with the underground ressitance( she likes this way too). She gives a small try to prop up some extermination acticity but her documentation skills seem to collapse when she does so - but she does try ( a believer - well sort of, maybe - hey what the heck she has got to feed herself).
I double checked - her work is not available on Amazon - only excerpta quoted in Jurgen Graf's(sp) book on Majdanek. As you would expect he, Graf, uses her data etxc to destroy her conclusions, though her conclusions are wandering, if that is the right word ( her facts seem to disagree with her emotions ). Her original work seems to not have a commericial market - Graf seems to be the only mention of her that I can find in print.
-- 159.105.80.141 (talk) 21 February 2008

Soviet camp(s)

[edit]

The article doesn't inform about the reusage of the camp as a POV camp and a camp for Polish underground soldiers deported to Soviet Union http://dzieje.pl/?q=node/4374, http://www.majdanek.pl/articles.php?acid=45&mref=1&lng=1.Xx236 (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B-class review

[edit]

This article is currently at start/C class, but could be improved to B-class if it had more (inline) citations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

source: http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alois_Kurz It shows he was part of the camp's structureValleyspring (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Death Camp Template

[edit]

I removed it because the template did not exist, and it was standing alone on the page.

-Le Badger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Incredulousbadger (talk • contribs) 19:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just realized what that was.

Incredulousbadger (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


"Carbon monoxide" bottles

[edit]

The CO bottles pictured on the page are actually CO2. See 30:47 of this film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47rbRNSGQUs&feature=youtu.be&t=30m47s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.136.108 (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay mister, you have a point. I can also see the "2" in the zoomed version of the cylinder pic on the wiki article page. I hope someone more knowledgeable person clears this up. Perhaps there is evidence the Nazis bottled CO in CO2 canisters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:502:3D80:71E4:75DE:11A9:E465 (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The CO2 bottles are only from a display created by the museum. They are not the bottles that the soviets found in the camp. The engravings do not match what we can see in the soviets photograph. You can judge for yourself by looking here.
http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=517591#p517591 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denying-History (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting, and I'm glad to see the phoney bottles haven't been added back to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.28.136.108 (talk) 20:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine then. As long as they're only what is presented as fact to the rubes who visit this theme park. 203.109.212.103 (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Majdanek concentration camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Majdanek concentration camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Majdanek concentration camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Majdanek concentration camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

impossible dates for Nuremberg Trial

[edit]

"The Soviets initially grossly overestimated the number of deaths, claiming at the Nuremberg Trials in July 1944..."

That is impossible. The Nuremberg Trials didn't happen until after the war, in 1946-47 according to the Wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CA10:18A0:0:0:0:6D6 (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 October 2020

[edit]

Recent historians have concluded that Majdanek was not used as an extermination camp: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/killing-centers-an-overview. Note the paragraph titled "Majdanek." I recommend editing this page in light of this. Mdrewcaffin (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2021

[edit]

change "Lublin" to "Konzentrationslager Lublin, Vernichtungslager Lublin, Kriegsgefangenenlager Maydanek, KL Majdanek" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alycja (talk • contribs) 21:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Alycja:  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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The word "Lublin" is used multiple times in this article. Please be more explicit as to where in the article you want to make the substitution(s). Thank you very much for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 05:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2021

[edit]

" claiming at the Nuremberg Trials in July 1944 that there were no fewer than 400,000 Jewish victims" error on '1944' ... should be 1945/1946 TGcoa (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC) TGcoa (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear to me whether it should be "at the Nuremburg Trials in 1946" (since that's the date of the transcript, though the figure in the transcript is a quote) or "in July 1944" (as that's when the camp was captured, and that's what was initially stated in the article). (relevant diff, courtesy ping Poeticbent). (Note: I'm marking the edit request as answered for now as it is under discussion). — LauritzT (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2021

[edit]

I think it would be worth mentioning and linking to the Wiki page for the Majdanek State Museum in the lead section, maybe in its last one or two sentences. We currently have mentions deep into the body but it seems like pertinent info to put up top — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetstache (talk • contribs) 05:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Just got extended-confirmed access and performed the edit myself. No comments for nearly a month, doesn't appear to be a controversial addition. Sweetstache (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracies Regarding the Killing Process

[edit]

In this article, I have found inaccuracies pertaining to the use of gas chambers at Majdanek. The most reliable information comes from the Majdanek Museum and its director, Tomasz Kranz. I have requested permission to edit the page, but it is fine if someone else wishes to do so. All relevant sources are linked below.

“It had seven gas chambers” – Should be changed to read “three gas chambers.” The figure cited in the Britannica article is now regarded as outdated by historians. According to current historiography, three homicidal gas chambers were installed in the brick building behind barrack 41 (in two of these, hydrogen cyanide and carbon monoxide were proven to be in regular use). The identification of the remaining four rooms as gas chambers by the Soviet Commission was made on highly spurious grounds.

“Executions were carried out in barrack 41 with the use of crystalline hydrogen cyanide released by the Zyklon B” - The following information should also be included. Two of the gas chambers were equipped with pipes, through which bottled carbon monoxide was released. Additionally, Zyklon B crystals were poured through a roof opening in the smaller chamber. In the opinion of the Dusseldorf Court, the chemical could have also been introduced into the larger chamber though its hot air installation. Some historians believe that the undressing room in barrack 41 was also used for limited Zyklon killings. However, the Museum points out that the chamber’s inward opening doors and adjoining rooms would tend to complicate such operations. For arguments in favour of this room’s homicidal function, consult the work of Pressac and Chocholatý.

“The same poison gas pellets were used to disinfect prisoner clothing in barrack 42” – It should be added that the disinfection of clothing also took place inside barrack 41.

“Majdanek was refurbished as a killing center around March 1942” – Should be changed to read that this decision was made around July 1942 - with three gas chambers having been constructed by October 1942.

“The gassing was performed in plain view of other inmates, without as much as a fence around the buildings” – It should be added that only inmates in the immediate vicinity of the bath barracks were in a position to see the gassings.


Further reading:

Gas Chambers at Majdanek: https://www.majdanek.eu/en/pow/gas_chambers_at_majdanek/57

The Role of Majdanek in “Aktion Reinhardt”: https://www.majdanek.eu/en/pow/the_role_of_majdanek_in____aktion_reinhardt/63

Extract from the Dusseldorf Trial judgement (30 June 1981): https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=24902&start=1200

Jean-Claude Pressac (12 December 1988): https://phdn.org/negation/pressac-leuchter.html. Note: Some of his conclusions regarding Zyklon B usage are limited by his lack of access to good primary sources.

Michal Chocholatý (2012): https://dspace.cuni.cz/bitstream/handle/20.500.11956/43117/BPTX_2010_2__0_288159_0_108365.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Michal Chocholatý (2017): https://dspace.cuni.cz/bitstream/handle/20.500.11956/97344/1520464_michal_chocholaty_32-54.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y


--IncongruousScholar (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Izno (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I linked two articles from the camp museum, three scholarly papers, and a section from a judicial judgement. In my opinion, these are all reliable sources. IncongruousScholar (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that you need to provide inline citations for the potentially contentious claims you make. For example, when you say that the notion it had seven gas chambers is "considered outdated", you need to provide a specific source for that specific claim. A list of general sources at the end is useful, but it does not really allow anyone to verify the claims made per WP:V. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2021

[edit]
SONSERINAMaior (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the number of deaths is considered a lot higher nowadays.Around 250.000 to 360.000

the number of deaths is considered a lot higher nowadays.Around 250.000 to 360.000 SONSERINAMaior (talk) 22:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please add as a notable inmate

[edit]

2603:7000:2143:8500:219C:CBA9:A16:EFFA (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2023

[edit]

Notable inmates [[1]] - photographer 2A00:23C6:FB89:6401:2DFE:1F49:920B:5053 (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cocobb8 (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 15:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cocobb8, Thank you for your reply. I would like Yva (Else Ernestine Neuländer-Simon) added to the notable inmates section of this page. The reliable source is the wikipedia page about her:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yva
Many thanks for your consideration of this matter. 86.158.250.213 (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. However, I used this source. Usually, we don't use other Wikipedia articles to write other articles per WP:WINARS. What we do is we rely on secondary sources, like the one I provided. For example, a primary source would be a company who makes an announcement, a secondary source would be the news or YouTube videos analyzing that announcement, and a tertiary source, like Wikipedia, is a collection of the first two. I hope that makes sense! Cocobb8 (💬 talk to me! • ✏️ my contributions) 14:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

self explanatory 174.29.69.68 (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typo in the 4th paragraph in the "Victims" section

[edit]

...the crematoria capacitu.

[capacitu] instead of capacity Refael Ackermann (talk) 13:16, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Mossé in the notable inmate list

[edit]

A Wikipedia article on Sonia Mossé exists already and should be linked here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Moss%C3%A9

In this article, the presence of Sonia at Lublin-Majdanek is actually questioned. Sonia and her half-sister Esther Levine were likely deported, instead, to the Polish extermination camp of Sobibór, where they were murdered on the very day of their arrival (March 30, 1943) 104.175.224.156 (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do the following statements need citations?

[edit]

The article currently says:

"The Soviets initially grossly overestimated the number of murders"

however, the given source for this statement is a primary source to the trial protocols (if I'm seeing that right), so where does the rather non-neutral statement of "grossly overestimated" come from? Don't we need a citation for such evaluative statements? Or is that one just so obvious that it falls under the umbrella of "common knowledge" that doesn't need inline citation?

Similarly, the conclusion:

"and though widely reported in this way, the estimate was never taken seriously by scholars."

has no citation at all. But that's a non-neutral claim that should have a citation? It also shouldn't be hard to find a source for that claim if the estimate was so clearly dismissed by scholars (although I could imagine that Soviet scholars still took their numbers serious even if everyone else did not, so a more neutral wording could be: "and though widely reported in this way, the estimate was never taken seriously by scholars outside the Soviet Union"). Nakonana (talk) 18:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Majdanek_concentration_camp&oldid=1256991194"