Jump to content

Talk:Warsaw concentration camp/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

No heading 1

Perhaps the page needs some explanation of the post-war controversies and the current IPN trial. Any volunteers? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 02:06, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

I suppose, it should be mentioned, that the existence of gas chambers in KL Warschau is not proved.

And with no connection with above topic. Shall it be mentioned, that liberated during Warsaw Uprising part of KL Warschau was called "Gęsiówka". MWeinz

Well... it is mentioned, isn't it. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 15:08, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Changed "Kozetrazionslager" to "Konzentrationslager" which is the correct spelling user:Barlotto

This kind of comments is usually entered into the "Edit summary" field. mikka (t) 19:18, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

One person saw KL Warschau operating and survived

Jan Moor-Jankowski a Polish born doctor ( about whom is a separate article in wikipedia ) during World War II while working for the polish resistance was ( by mistake ) arrested by the Germans and taken to KL Warschau . Since he was disguising himself as a member of the Todt organisation ( Nazi engineers organisation , i think ), he was released . He was the only witness of the camp operating . Also there are some evidence that after WWII communists used KL Warschau as a prison for those that opposed their reign ( while still emploing captive Germans there ). That's why the camps existence wasn't reaveled by the communists after the war .— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.121.72.252 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Corrections

I made some corrections based on IPN information.

Some background information: IPN is professionally investigating Nazi and Soviet crimes in Poland and they are generally held in high regard by historians. In particular Nazi crimes from that time are usually reasonably well documented. Authors of many controversial books on WW2 crimes usually make very little (or none at all) actual research and simply reinterpret the existing data in a way that creates most controversy and sells most books, and usually they are not treated very seriously by mainstream historians. I'd say this is one of such cases.

One thing that still needs verification is Wilhelm Goecke which is claimed to be "the first commander of KL Warschau". Is it supposed to mean 1943 commander of the camp created in Ghetto ruins, or some sort of 1942 supervisor of extermination-related activities before the camp was officially created or what ? Taw 01:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Witnesses of the tunnel gas chamber

IPN claims there is only one eye-witness. From the IPN report [1]:

Co do istnienia komory gazowej w tunelu w ciągu ul. Bema w aktach sprawy znajduje się jedna tylko relacja naocznego świadka F. J., który został przesłuchany w dniu 4 kwietnia 1989 r. [...]

Translated:

As for the existance of gas chamber in tunnel at Bem Street, the evidence contain only a single relation of an eye-witness F.J., who have been interrogated on April 4, 1989 [...]

Taw 12:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There are two new eye-witnesses found. [2] There are even the gassing facalities remaning, as well as an other witness for a huge amounts of (unknown) gas storaged (there are several "partial" witnesses). [3] Btw, this closing report was rejected by the state parliament, and the official investigation restarted. --HanzoHattori 13:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that's pretty interesting. So let's remove the part about there being only one witness, but I'd still rather keep IPN's estimates (probably number of victims being "tens of thousands", and the tunnel being possible but not certain) unless something moves on with the investigation. Taw 18:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No heading 2

!! Unfortunately, the entry on Konzentrazionslager Warschau is highly misleading. No evidence exists of neither the gas chamber in the West Warsaw tunnel, nor of the claimed huge number of victims (who the proponents of the KL Warschau campaign refer to as "Polish Christians," victims of a "Christian Holocaust"). The "historical evidence" produced in the book by Maria Trzcinska -the main document refered to by those who seek to establish the death camp as a historical fact- is flawed and biased (e.g. naive calculations of how many Poles were killed a day during the Nazi occupations of Warsaw). None of the many historians specializing in World War II or the mambers of the War-time Polish intelligence, nor, for that matter, any of the civilian survivors of the war in Warsaw, support her argument or even take it seriously. Had a major death camp eqipped with gas chambers and operating on the scale similar to Treblinka (200,000 victims in slightly more than a year) been located in the middle of Warsaw, it would have been widely known both during and after the Nazi occupation. And, frankly, some knowledge of it would have survived, both in archives and in popular memory. Such is the position on the issue by the Institute of National Rememberance (IPN). In short, what existed of the alleged "death camp KL Warschau" was the concentration camp set up in the area of the prison at Gesiowka. The great majority of the victims were not "Polish Christians," but non-Polish Jews (Greek, Belgian, French, etc.) brought to Warsaw in 1943 as labor force to dismantle the remainings of what used to be the Warsaw ghetto. The total number of victims of this KL Warschau could have amounted to a few tens of thousands at the most, and most of the deaths were linked to typhoid. In short: Did something called "Konzentrationslager Warschau" exist? Yes. Did it look anything like the monstrous network of five "lagers," a huge gas-chamber and krematoria desribed by Trzcinska and other supporters? No. The play with numbers is telling. Sure, Warsaw suffered great human losses during the war, but the victims of the 1943-44 German terror, the many round-ups and killings in the ruins of the ghetto, as well as the civilian casualties of the 1944 Warsaw rising, should not be included in the death toll of "KL Warschau" - unless what one really wants to do is to conjure up an imaginary -indeed, nightmarish- entity and market it as a "historical fact" for reasons of political expediency (e.g. in order to accuse the liberal political and intellectual elites of compliancy in silencing "the truth" in a conspiracy-theory manner). The currently on-going campaign that aims at winning official recognition of the alleged death camp is an unfortunate product of the nationalist imagination, conspiracy theory thinking, and a political undertaking of the nationalist catholic right. It seeks to create a counter-narrative to the history of the Holocaust and foreground what is perceived as the unrecognized suffering of the Catholic Poles. In fact, and fortunately, it is--as of yet--merely a marginal artifact of local exoticism, and should only be regarded as such. For more information, see the website of the Polish Institute of National Rememberence, a state body that coordinates historical and judiciary investigations on events of the Second World War and the Communist rule in Poland: http://www.ipn.gov.pl/sled_klw_090503.html http://www.ipn.gov.pl/aktual_2707_klw.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.136.192 (talk • contribs) 04:19, 28 March 2006 {UTC) (UTC) and — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paven1 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Do you question existance of the "small" gas chambers? Of the other camps other than Gesiowka (and I guess Pawiak)? Of the Pabst Plan? Of Pabst himself maybe? Why do you think mass shootings and the policy of lapankas are not related? What were the German-installed pump machines in the tunnel? Your links are dead. --HanzoHattori 18:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Polish wiki article

It's larger and concentrating on the tunnel controversy, including the government moves including official investigations (appearently there will be a detailed end report this year).

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warschau_(KL)

Guess anyone would use it here? --HanzoHattori 18:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

SS-Obergruppenführer Wilhelms

SS-Obergruppenführer Wilhelm Goecke = SS-Obergruppenführer Wilhelm Koppe ? --HanzoHattori 20:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit tag

What section(s) need copyedited? daveh4h 23:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Because my English is bad? --HanzoHattori 23:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your English looks good to me. You are doing a good job. daveh4h 23:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

IPN - extermination camp memorial officially supported

W dniu 20 listopada 2006 r. odbyło się spotkanie przedstawicieli Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej z reprezentantami Komitetu Budowy Pomnika Ofiar Obozu – KL Warschau oraz Komitetu Upamiętnienia Ofiar Obozu Zagłady – KL Warschau. IPN potwierdził stanowisko popierające ideę budowy pomnika Pomordowanych w KL Warschau. W tej sprawie Prezes IPN skierował stosowne pismo do Komitetów. Przedstawiciele Instytutu poinformowali, iż w ciągu 6 miesięcy opublikowany zostanie szczegółowy raport, zawierający analizę i dokumenty dot. funkcjonowania KL Warschau. IPN zaprosił sędzię Marię Trzcińską do opublikowania swojego opracowania w ramach tego raportu. [4]

They're late with their final report already. --HanzoHattori 19:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. If they ever do someone please take notice. --HanzoHattori 19:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

IPN book (tommorow)

W sprzedaży od 25 września 2007 r.

Tom składa się z dwóch części: studium oraz aneksów (dokumenty i ilustracje). Celem pracy jest opis i próba systematyzacji nowych ustaleń w sprawie KL Warschau, naszkicowanie tła historycznego i prezentacja najważniejszych dokumentów z akt śledztwa w sprawie zbrodni ludobójstwa popełnionej w latach 1943–1944 w niemieckim obozie koncentracyjnym w Warszawie. Ważne są również pytania, wciąż zadawane przez historyków i środowiska kombatanckie, a zwłaszcza kwestie wywołujące najwięcej polemik i sporów, dotyczące wielkości obozu, jego obszaru, przeznaczenia i charakteru, oraz tego, ile osób naprawdę w nim zginęło, czy w obozie funkcjonowały komory gazowe i krematoria, a jeżeli tak, to gdzie, oraz czy prawdą jest, że został założony w październiku 1942 r.[5]

If anyone bought and read it, use it with the article. --HanzoHattori 02:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, really. Anyone? --HanzoHattori 18:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

missing sources

We need an expert to fix this article's content before fixing the grammar and vocab problems. Not only does the article not provide sources but it is especially missing sources for the controversial claims about an extermination camp and the number of victims. The German Wikipedia article de:KZ Warschau provides sources for both sides of the debate. --Espoo (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "extermination camp" has a specific meaning, which does not apply here; rm dubious unsourced claims & apparently fringe section". --K.e.coffman (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: - good find. Please read Under the Railway Line, London Review of Books, Christian Davies, 9 May 2019. I intend to nuke the whole thing - mention ot was a camp mainly for non-Polish Jews from 1943 to 1944 who were used as slave labor. I will also add a blurb on modern conspiracy theories. Much of our current article is within what is described as a conspiracy theory. Your thoughts? Icewhiz (talk) 20:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Also - par the course for WP:HOAXes in the topic area (much worse prior to your edit in May - we actually were claiming 400,000 victims) - the Polish Wikipedia (just reviewed) is in a fairly good state - describing mainstream history (in detail) along the lines above, as well as describing the conspiracy theory - as such.Icewhiz (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Nuked & replaced. I thought I'd stub it to begin with, but I ended up writing more prose (8319 chars) than what was there previously (5425 chars after KEC's cut in May) and close to the 8554 chars that were there pre-May. While definitely an off the beat topic in English (functioned for approx. a year, smaller than the main camps - a sub-camp part of the time) - there are actually not too shabby sources in English available. Icewhiz (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
More detailed account of issues in the pre-nuked page - User:Icewhiz/KL Warschau conspiracy theory. Icewhiz (talk) 09:55, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Verification

In re: the request for verification:

A special Jewish fighting platoon and a Jewish brigade to construct barricades were formed from liberated prisoners. These units sustained heavy losses. The morale of the former prisoners was corroded, however, when antisemitism reared its ugly head in the fighting units; antisemitic Poles even killed several liberated prisoners who volunteered for combat units.

Source: Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, Volume I, p. 1514. The volume can be downloaded in full from the USHMM web site: [6].

--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment on the Harez's article

Israel’s relentless quest to dominate Wikipedia is not a new story and is hardly a secret. Back in 2010 The Guardian wrote that Israeli “groups seeking to gain the upper hand in the online debate have launched a course in ‘Zionist editing’ for Wikipedia, the online reference site.” You can watch the rabid right wing Israeli politician Naftali Bennet commenting on a Wikipedia editing workshop that teaches Jews and others how to edit Wikipedia pages to favour the Israeli position.


http://www.unz.com/gatzmon/here-come-the-polocaust-deniers/ 5.173.248.104 (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

And what edit do you think needs being done?Slatersteven (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Gilad Atzmon, the author of the article at unz.com, admits "I’m not even remotely an expert on gas chambers. I am neither an engineer nor a historian and have no opinion on the validity or historicity of claims that Poles were gassed by Nazis." And after admitting that he is totally ignorant about the subject, he proceeds to rant about it at length. Moreover, it says at Gilad Atzmon that his writings and pronouncements are described as "rich in conspiracy theories, Holocaust trivialization and distortion." And the thesis of the Haaretz article seems to be correct: A new article appeared on Wikipedia in 2004 telling a false narrative that persisted until August 27, 2019.
IP User 5.173.248.104, I certainly encourage you to point out and correct bias or errors in this or any other article, and to support article edits with references to reliable sources. On talk pages, it's best to keep the discussion on the article itself, not the motives of political operators with whom you disagree. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory presented as fact on Wikipedia

The subsection that the conspiracy theory was presented as fact on Wikipedia for 15 years was removed with the edit summary "WP:UNDUE and other issues, including recent arbcom ruling on quality of sources".
I don't see why it would be WP:UNDUE. The John Siegenthaler article a section titled Subject of a hoax about how bogus information about him was left on Wikipedia for 6 months. In this case, the bogus information lasted 15 years !!
As for the quality of the sources, I don't know what is wrong with Haaretz, so I would need to see a link to this ruling. There are at least two other references listed at the top of this talk page, so we could use them instead if Haaretz is objectionable (which for the moment I don't see why it would be). Banana Republic (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Because this has only really be covered by relatively few (being generous?) sources. A one line mention might be in order, no more.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
The {{press}} template at the top of this talk page lists three independent references discussing the hoax on Wikipedia and characterizing it as Wikipedi'a longest running hoax. I think this makes it significant enough for inclusion, and a single sentence would make it appear like a whitewashing job. Banana Republic (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Still not sure that is enough when the article is not about Wikipedia.Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:3REFS says that 3 independent references are usually sufficient to establish notability, but that's for an article about a topic. For a mere mention in another article, the bar is lower. Banana Republic (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Notability and weight are different policies, wp:n and wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
The deleted subsection consists of only a single paragraph with 5 sentences, and to be fair, the last sentence in the paragraph was added for WP:NPOV reasons to explain that the editor who presented the conspiracy theory as fact cannot defend himself. Since WP:UNDUE is a policy within WP:NPOV, it's really a net of 4 sentences. I don't see how 4 sentences could be too much weight. Banana Republic (talk) 19:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Articles on geography as well as on Earth do not even mention Flat Earth fringe theory. It is all the question of scope and coverage. I think this is article should mention the fringe theory - it did before your edits. But that theory is unlikely to be notable on its own, and the details that were removed AFAIK were covered only in this one (Haaretz) publication. Other news outlets which picked up this story (not many, through a few) did not deign to repeat those particular details, and for a good reason - they are either irrelevant, hard to verify or plain incorrect. The problem with Haaretz piece is that it gets a lot of its info from an editor who was indef-banned for off Wiki harassment and even links, in text, to Encyclopedia Dramatica, a troll hate site that directly links to WP:OUTING information and contains death treats against some editors. It is not quality journalism, to say the least, and this is something to be kept in mind of the "ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES" presented at the top. And I am pretty sure the ArbCom meant 'don't use crappy journalism that's partially used to harass opponents of a banned editor who was party to the very case that resulted in said remedies' as a source... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
None of your assertions are backed by anything, but assuming they are true, they are not reasons to redact the paragraph about how the conspiracy theory was presented as fact on Wikipedia for 15 years. Specifically,
  • The behavior of the editor who discovered the hoax is absolutely irrelevant since the discovery happened before the ban
  • Even if the banned editor was the source that alerted Haaretz staff writer Omer Benjakob to the story, that does not mean that Haaretz is not WP:RS. This would even be true if Omer Benjakob is the banned editor (and I don't know if that's the case) because Mr. Benjakob was not writing for himself, he was writing for Haaretz (who would issue a correct if the story was not true).
  • I think that the story about the conspiracy theory is incomplete if it is not mentioned the fact that the conspiracy theory was presented as fact on Wikipedia for 15 years. It is very rare for Wikipedia hoaxes to survive more than a few weeks. At 15 years, this is so far the longest known hoax to have survived on Wikipedia.
It's not clear from your writing who links to Encyclopedia Dramatica: Haaretz, or the banned editor? I don't see any links from Haaretz to that site, so I guess it's the banned editor. As I wrote in my first bullet, the behavior of the banned editor is irrelevant on whether there should be a paragraph regarding how the conspiracy theory was presented as fact. Banana Republic (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Haaretz links to this. Anyway, you fail to address the issue of WP:UNDUE, and mentioning of another editor by name in connection to this, while probably not WP:OUTING since I think he declared his name on Wiki himself, does raise concerns re WP:BLP too. Bottom line, this is no-no on so many levels. Please stop adding this link to Wikipedia before gaining consensus on talk. Perhaps ArbCom should be consulted regarding whether this link is appropriate at all.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Piotrus is in conflict of interest as his edits were throughly roasted by Haaretz.176.221.108.218 (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
How is that a COI?Slatersteven (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Because he is mentioned in the Haaretz article (near the bottom), and not in the best of light. Banana Republic (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Not sure, but an IP joining this is interesting, considering the article is co-authored by indef banned User:Icewhiz, who was banned for off wiki harassment, and who would clearly have a COI here to promote his piece which slanders other editors, including linking to Encyclopedia Dramatica hate page which in turns contains outing and death treats information. The Haarez hack piece should not be used. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
If we include this in the article, the Haaretz piece should be used. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't recall Icewhiz being a reporter for Haaretz. François Robere (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Since his identity remains anonymous, we can't exclude the possibility he is one, now, can we...? Not that it is likely, but it is not impossible. In either case, the Haaretz article admits he was the main source for its claims, and it is quite plausible he provided links or such, since some, like the ED page, also were linked from his Twitter. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Piotrus, let it go. François Robere (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Let go of what? I think it's better if you'd rather stop defending an indef banned editor who harassed/outed our colleagues. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Of conspiracy theories, Piotr. You have the piece, you have >10 other outlets that cite it, along with several scholars - that's what matters. François Robere (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm counting six RS and at least nine outlets (eleven if we consider Algemeiner and the JNS, which syndicate Haaretz content),[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] so WP:DUE shouldn't be a problem. François Robere (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Enough for me now, but I am unsure about open online being an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
It is crucial to note that neither of those reprints the entire Haaretz piece. They summarize it or reprint the parts about the hoax, but not the parts about Wikipedia edtitors - nobody is named, and the hate site ED is not linked from other pieces outside Haartez. I still don't think we should mention this in the article, but if we do, we should not link to the Haaretz piece with its BLP/OUTING/other problems, and we should not mention people by name, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Seems valid, we should not be in the business of outing edds.Slatersteven (talk) 10:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:PROPORTION should be considered, though. This is a 10-days old news-story, the article is about a historical topic. A well-sourced sentence or two would seem currently reasonable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, IMO using twitter as a source [17] is a bad idea. Even if the twitee is an expert on the subject per WP:SPS, if the view is only found on twitter, find something better ot leave it out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
We have two other experts making similar statements, but since Piotrus doesn't want to use the Haaretz piece (Haaretz being an RS in its own right)... François Robere (talk) 13:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I concur Twitter is not reliable per WP:TWITTER. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
That only applies to "self-published and questionable sources", not to HUP-published RS. François Robere (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Twitter is not HUP-published, c'mon. I don't think this story made it into any books yet. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
But the historian behind that account is, and we should treat him just like any other historian voicing their opinion in popular media. François Robere (talk) 10:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, let's discuss the wording, since I think some mention of this incident is likely to stay here. Since nobody seems to restore the BLP-problematic version, that's one, but there are other issues. Namely, it is incorrect to say that 2004 version (or any other) "was based primarily based on Trzcińska's research". The 2004 version lacks inline citations which simply were not used back then; it does mention her but only in one sentence and with the wording "Trzcinska claims", so hardly giving her view the primacy. Next, the "Despite some initial objections, the conspiracy theory was left in the article for 15 years" is also inaccurate - because the conspiracy theory is left in this version too. Also, it is dubious the term conspiracy theory is correct, this is a fringe theory, but it doesn't accuse anyone, AFAIK, of trying to suppress it (no black chopppers here...). Also, as I believe User:Slatersteven already mentioned in an edit summary, this is too short to merit its own subheading. Finally, it is dubious we need to mention where this was publicized - it is simply excess level of detail (UNDUE). I am restoring the version without those errors (I will also note that this version was edited by not just me, but also by Slatersteven, FR and BR, and neither of us four seemed to disagree with the changes of wording that I already explained in the edit summary and now elaborate on here). Perhaps further changes in wording are needed, but let's avoid factual errors. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The current wording The conspiracy theory was presented as fact on the English Wikipedia article about the Warsaw concentration camp for 15 years: from August 2004 until August 2019. The hoax was publicized in the media in October 2019.[18] fails verification. Times of Israel does not describe the inaccurate information as a conspiracy theory. It states The Wikipedia page now contains a section on what it describes as the conspiracy theory surrounding the internment camps. Times of Israel does not say it started from August 2004, neither does it say 15 years, it says most of the last 15 years. starship.paint (talk) 03:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the wording I proposed (it has changed quite a lot in the few edits by others) might have been better: "An English Wikipedia article about the Warsaw concentration camp was first drafted in August 2004. The article discussed Trzcińska's research as one of the mainstream views for 15 years. The error finally came to light in October." Through perhaps the middle part was a bit unwieldy. However, I think we can just quote, with attribution and quotation marks, the ToI parts mentioned above, I think this might be an even better solution. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

An English Wikipedia article about the Warsaw concentration camp was first drafted in August 2004. The article presented Trzcińska's discredited research as as a mainstream view for 15 years. The erroneous information was fully expunged in August 2019, and this was publicized in the media in October 2019, which labelled the erroneous information as "Wikipedia’s longest-standing hoax".

starship.paint (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

No need to change the text. Just replace the reference to the Haaretz article, and then it will pass verification. Banana Republic (talk) 03:52, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Banana Republic: - I believe it passes verification already, since I added two more sources [19] [20] to the current source [21]. starship.paint (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
It's a little long, but ok. "Hoax" should be in there. I'm assuming Trzcińska's research was discredited in 2004. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: That's the thing, this theory wasn't fully rejected until few years ago. See [22] (the original seems paywalled now). "When Trzcińska outlined her claims in a monograph published in 2002, they were rejected by the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN)". This sentence is a bit imprecise, but as the subsequent parafraphs make clear, the rejection happened gradually, with the first criticism published in academic sources in 2007 (this is also the timeframe as prsented on pl:Warschau_(KL)#Kontrowersje_wokół_ustaleń_Marii_Trzcińskiej, a Good Article there). So it is crucial to note that when the article was created on Wikipedia(s), her theory was not rejected; this happened later (and it simply wasn't updated here, since it's a fringe theory about footnote historical topic and nobody was the wiser until an English journalist published a piece about that issue in the London Review of Books few months ago; then some editors noticed this and fixed up the articles here; and then Haaretz published their piece about this error remaining here for the long time - doh, we surely have thousands of such minor errors all around the place). The problem with calling it a hoax is that hoax suggests this was either created maliciously or added here in bad faith; but clearly in 2004 or so when this was added to Wikipedia nobody could have know it was incorrect; back then it was just a hypothesis.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Andreas Mix refuted craziness in German 2003-2007. Refutation not needed for Bielefeld-Verschwörung or fake moon landing craziness. Do you require scientific proof for Bielefeld?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunter888 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Try again, you are not making any sense. What are you talking about? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
You write Polish language. Andreas Mix wrote in Deutsch on this craziness. Das was always crazy. You don't need a publication refuting crazy. The Bielefeld-Verschwörung crazies write city of Bielefeld nicht exist. You demand sources writing outright they wrong? Fake moon landing theory? This crazy ist OK on Wikipedia until someone talks back to crazies? No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunter888 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTATALKFORUM. Please learn how to write in English properly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Piotrus, "it's unreasonable to expect an average [whatever], even if he speaks English, to [whatever]."[23] And anyways, his point stands. François Robere (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Why does the subheading keep getting removed?

Why is the subheading keep getting removed [24] [25]? The use of the conspiracy theory on Wikipedia is not an explanation of the conspiracy theory. Therefore, it seems logical to separate the usage of the conspiracy theory from the explanation of the conspiracy theory. Banana Republic (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It also seems logical not to put this relatively tiny thing in a separate section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Size does not matter. The material is distinct from the rest of the section, and henceforth should be separated. Banana Republic (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
That is a matter of opinion. Let's see if other editors have any. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Anything can be argued to be distinct. I don’t think it warrants a subsection, because it is indeed small and also unlikely to be expanded more. starship.paint (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Because it's WP:UNDUE. The fringe theory should be mentioned, briefly, and may even merit its own section; the wiki history incident that is hardly notable does not. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

This article mentioned in Israeli newspaper is a “hoax”

Sorry, doing this on my phone, good, critical newspaper article about this Wikipedia article: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-the-fake-nazi-death-camp-wikipedia-s-longest-hoax-exposed-1.7942233 Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, look at the top of the page.Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Should this be mentioned in the "Conspiracy theories" section? I know that it's going to be weird for an article to refer to itself, but still. Juxlos (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Maybe if this gets a little more "feet". IMO, we can wait a bit per WP:NOTNEWS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Not really, it would be a bit undue. It would add nothing to our understanding of the issue beyond.Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, there's more coverage, but we should consider WP:PROPORTION. This may deserve a mention at Reliability of Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
That would be more appropriate.Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I write in Hebrew wikipedia, and I can add that haaretz is a serious newspaper, and that there are serious discussions now going on on Hebrew wikipedia on that matter, it worth waiting and following thsee discussions too.--Midrashah (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Links to discussions on Hebrew wikipedia:

--Midrashah (talk) 20:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

What happens on another wiki is of no relevance here. Different wiki's have different rules on many things, which makes comparison with the English wiki problematic.Slatersteven (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has hinted that Haaretz isn't a serious newspaper. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Another one [26] --Shrike (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Which calls the previous piece 'sensationalist'... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
It also claims that there are a bunch of antisemites editing Wikipedia, but I don't suppose you agree with that conclusion? (I don't either). But this new piece is very clearly an editoral and needs to be treated as such, as opposed to the earlier piece which is an investigative news story.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Der author ist university history professor and chief historian of Warsaw Ghetto Museum. Expert opinion fur Holocaust and antisemitism.Gunter888 (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
But WP:FRINGE/WP:UNDUE claims don't belong here. Claims about "a bunch of antisemites" are on the same poorly researched level that the original Trzcinska's Polish martylogy legend. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
No. That is expert opinion. Trzcinska was crazy old lady with no standing. Blatman's expertise ist Polnische antisemitism.Gunter888 (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I am confused, how does any of this alter the fact this was a hoax, and it did sit here for 15 years?Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@Slatersteven: It is mostly a matter of wording. Fringe theory =/= hoax =/= conspiracy theory =/= lie etc. Terminology is important. Flat Earth is not the same as Moon landing conspiracy or some sort of [[[seudoscience]], nor are they the same as outright Holocaust denial, and a Wikipedia WP:HOAX is not the same as a hoax in real life. If we use imprecise terms, we do a disservice to the reader and introduce confusion. And the fact that a newspaper called this a hoax doesn't mean it was one, if the said newspaper used incorrect terminology. So, to reply to your statement, which may not be that relevant to the previous discussion here, I don't think we should use the term hoax to describe this outside of attribution to the newspaper, as it was a fringe theory (per WP:FRINGE=/=WP:HOAX). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Verifiable not truth is our watchword.Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Blatman's quote

I don't think this quote is necessary, it is an opinion piece that's rather WP:UNDUE. If such a view would be shared by multiple sources discussing this, it's one thing, but an opinion of a single scholar in a newspaper opinion piece is likely too insignificant to warrant mention. Plus also WP:REDFLAG. And frankly, WP:FRINGE. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Blatman ist a normative historian und chief historian of the Warsaw ghetto museum. KZ Warschau was a continuation of the ghetto. He is an Expert here. He is not fringe. Gunter888 (talk) 08:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
It is reliable as a statement from a respected academic in the field. And it does provide commentary counter to that presented in the other Haaretz piece.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


I think that it would be better to lump statements taken from Professor Blatman's Haaretz article together. The first statement is peculiar in that it follows on after one stating that "Havi Dreifuss, Jan Grabowski and Gideon Greif relate it to government intervention in the field" without mentioning that criticism of those who link the myth in such a way is one of the main themes of Blatman's article.
The final paragraph of the section states that Trzcińska's theory was "debunked by mainstream scholarly publications by 2007," citing Benjakob's article. Presumably that is based on the quotation of Grabowski that Boguslaw Kopka's book “completely blew Trzcinska’s theory out of the water.” In contrast, Christian Davis, less hyperbolically, wrote, "Bogusław Kopka published a book under the aegis of the IPN that criticised Trzcińska’s thesis and estimated the number of victims of Gęsiówka at twenty thousand."
    ←   ZScarpia   10:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Not a conspiracy theory

Trzcinsk'a theory does not fit the definition of a conspiracy theory: "an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful actors, often political in motivation". Nowwhere is here theory related to invoking a conspiracy, i.e. that someone is trying to 'hide the truth'. The fact that some newspapers etc. refer to it as such is not relevant, since it's a clear sensationalism and usage of attention grabbing but clearly incorrect term (like hoax). If people think it is really important to mention it has been called such, we can attribute it, but this section should not be called in such an incorrect way, particularly as we haveplenty of other terms to use. Again, per our own policies, this is WP:FRINGE and this is the most clear term to use. Nobody is disputing that it is a fringe theory, now, are they? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

In her book Trzcińska claimed quite directly that communist regime in postwar Poland hid the truth about the "extermination camp in Warsaw" bacuse it didn't want to atract the attention to the fact that after the end of German occupation NKVD and MBP camps existed there. Sounds like the conspiracy theory to me. We can also recall the quote from the Christian Davis article for LRB: "So, why was almost no one in Poland aware of the existence of this additional death camp in the centre of the country’s capital? The answer reads like a nationalist fever dream, in which all of the nation’s historic enemies play a role: the Germans covered it up because they didn’t want to pay reparations for Nazi crimes; the Jews covered it up because they didn’t want to give up their share of the global victims’ market; the Russians and Polish communists covered it up because they ran the facility after the war (in these circles, ‘Jew’ and ‘communist’ are often used interchangeably); Poles in the know covered it up because they were bribed or brainwashed by foreign interests."Dreamcatcher25 (talk) 08:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

What do RS call it?Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

The Haaretz article and numerous subsequent articles call the misinformation a "hoax". Konieczny (off-wiki in the Haaretz article) calls it a "fringe theory" rather than a "hoax". In his academic capacity, his claim has legitimacy. Also in Haaretz, Havi Dreifuss calls it "fake history", "baseless narrative", and Holocaust denial ("Holocaust revisionism in Wikipedia deserves to be studied in its own right"), and Jan Grabowski calls it "a conspiracy theory". In addition to "hoax", Benajakob also uses the terms "falsehood", "false narrative", Holocaust denial (for instance, an "attempt to revise the accepted history of the Shoah" and "Holocaust distortion"), "Polocaust", "disinformation", "conspiracy theory", and "myth". Christian Davies calls it a "conspiracy theory" (currently cited in the article). Stephan Lehnstaedt (currently cited) calls it a "legend" (source in German). This article (in Polish, and pay-walled, so I can't access it) is currently cited in support of "conspiracy theory".
So, of those sources, the labels that are repeated by at least two different sources are "conspiracy theory", with four mentions, Holocaust denial, with three mentions (at least), and "false narrative"/"fake history", with two mentions. "Conspiracy theory" is the most widely used, and can be used in conjunction with Holocaust denial.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm, I appreciate both of you making very good points. Given your arguments, I think I will withdraw my objection to calling this a conspiracy theory (but I still think it is not fair to call it a hoax). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Multiple Experten disagree.Gunter888 (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Piotrus, I agree with the opinion that the term "conspiracy theory"[27][28] is being misused. It begs the questions: who were the conspirators and what was the plot. Also, for me, the word "hoax" implies a malicious prank. Malicious the theory might have been, but a prank it wasn't. Personally, I'd go for words like "myth", "invention" or "fiction".     ←   ZScarpia   15:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The sources use "hoax" and "conspiracy theory". Here's what Christian Davies wrote about the purported coverup:

So, why was almost no one in Poland aware of the existence of this additional death camp in the centre of the country’s capital? The answer reads like a nationalist fever dream, in which all of the nation’s historic enemies play a role: the Germans covered it up because they didn’t want to pay reparations for Nazi crimes; the Jews covered it up because they didn’t want to give up their share of the global victims’ market; the Russians and Polish communists covered it up because they ran the facility after the war (in these circles, ‘Jew’ and ‘communist’ are often used interchangeably); Poles in the know covered it up because they were bribed or brainwashed by foreign interests.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
There is a problem in the wording of the article perhaps. Various fictions were created in order to exagerrate victimhood. In order to explain why, for example, the fictions hadn't been better known, conspiracy theories featuring Germans, Jews and Russian and Polish Communists were constructed. A legend was created that "the camp was much larger, and functioned as an extermination camp for the non-Jewish population of Warsaw, killing 200,000 mainly non-Jewish Poles." The legend was associated with conspiracy theories. But the legend wasn't itself a conspiracy theory.     ←   ZScarpia   08:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
It was a hoax, what else was it? This was a deliberate fabrication.Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Liberated by Red Army?

I have very serious doubt if infobox should contain information that camp was “liberated [...] subsequently by Red Army”.

After fierce fight camp was taken by the soldiers of Polish Home Army (Armia Krajowa) on August 5, 1944 and consequently 348 Jewish prisoners were liberated. On the other hand, Red Army entered to the completely destroyed Warsaw in January 1945. Neither the single Jewish prisoner nor the SS guard were present in the Warsaw concentration camp on that time. What’s equally important, Soviet NKVD immediately organize its own camp for the German POWs and Polish anti-Communist in the venue of the abandoned Nazi camp at Gęsia street. IMHO it is clear that we cannot perceive it as a liberation of any sort…

There is a reference to the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945. However, I checked this source (p. 1514) and it states that:

In Warsaw itself, the Warsaw Uprising erupted on August 1, and on August 5, the “Zośka” battalion of the Polish underground Home Army (Armia Krajowa, AK) liberated the Warschau concentration camp […] With the defeat of the Warsaw Uprising by superior German forces on October 2, the surviving Jewish prisoners were compelled either to flee or go into hiding in bunkers. Life in the bunkers was a grueling ordeal. When the Red Army finally entered Warsaw on January 17, 1945, only 200 Jews, among them former prisoners from the Warschau concentration camp, reemerged from their bunkers still alive.

I am convinced that this source doesn’t justified the statement that the camp itself was “liberated” by the Soviets. I will delete this mention unless there will be no serious counterarguments.Dreamcatcher25 (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Quote from Christian Davies

I would like to add a quote of Christian Davies to the article. To anyone not familiar with Davies, he's a Warsaw-based correspondent for the London Review of Books and The Guardian. His piece, Under the Railway Line,[29] was the instigator to uncovering this issue on Wikipedia earlier this year (see User:François Robere/sandbox/KL Warschau). In response to Daniel Blatman, who's quoted in the article, Davies writes the following:[30]

In 2010, Poland’s Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) asked a respected historical investigator called Zygmunt Walkowski to establish the facts about the camp. Walkowski was able to establish not only that Trzcinska’s thesis was wrong, but that it had essentially been bogus from the start, resting on demonstrable falsehoods that could have been easily refuted even back in the 1970s.

Walkowski submitted his report to the IPN in 2017. In the meantime, however, the state body had been taken over by Poland’s ruling right-wing Law and Justice party (PiS) after its victory in elections in 2015. PiS has long sided with the nationalist activists in the KL Warschau dispute, and the man it had appointed as the new director of the IPN, Jarosław Szarek, had himself promoted Trzcinska’s campaign in his former life as a right-wing journalist.

Not only has the government-backed IPN flatly refused to publish or even to publicize Walkowski’s report disproving the hoax, but it has actively sought to prevent him from presenting his findings under its auspices. In its public statements, including on social media, it continues to pretend that the last word on the subject was a book published in 2007 which disagreed with Trzcinska’s thesis, but, crucially, did not disprove it.

I would like to cite this in the relevant place in the article. I believe it's WP:DUE, and as it's about current or recent affairs - something in which the author's credentials are established - I don't think it violates TA sourcing restrictions. Nevertheless, for the sake of caution and consensus, I'm presenting it here first. François Robere (talk) 11:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd say it certainly should be added - but which part specifically do you want to quote? I assume not the entire text given here.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Of course not. Probably just a sentence or two along the lines of "CD, who has written on the subject, disagrees with Blatman. He notes that the IPN refuses to allow the release of a report by ZW that could refute Tr's claims." François Robere (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
The source is no less reliable than the prior newspaper pieces, but which of Blatman's claims present in the article is he disagreeing with? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:57, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
That this isn't about politics as much as it is about Wikipedia's reliability: "In discussing who is to blame for the distortion of history, Blatman writes that Wikipedia is 'a truly guilty side'..." (for some reason we don't quote the first part of his argument, but that's the gist of it). François Robere (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I think the references to the encouragement of the conspiracy by the Polish government were largely removed. Probably they should be added back.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to see some more sources/specifics because accusing governments of conspiracies. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Just a suggestion. Maybe it will be better to describe at first place the whole conspiracy theory and the process of its debunking? (as in the article at pl.wiki). Especially few more words about Walkowski findings should be added. IMHO the series of press articles from 2019 are not the the most important part of this story.Dreamcatcher25 (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I think this is the better approach. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:41, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
The above opinion piece doesn't fulfill the criteria as required by sourcing restrictions and thus cannot be added.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Explanation from Davies

@Piotrus: I've emailed Mr. Davies about the reasons behind that statement. He replied with the following, which he kindly allowed me to quote here:

The statement is based on my extensive interviews (about 8 hours in all) with Walkowski himself - i.e. with the original source. It is also supported by the fact that the IPN have made no public announcements on Walkowski's findings, nor have they published his findings in any of their publications, nor have they held any public events where he has been able to present his findings, nor will they answer my questions as to why I received completely different and contradictory answers concerning the IPN's position on the issue, as well as the fact that in their social media activity they continue claim that the most recent investigation into the issue was made by Boguslaw Kopka in a book published in 2007. They only acknowledged the existence of Walkowski's report once I published on social media a letter from an IPN prosecutor confirming that there had been an investigation that ran from 2010 to 2017.

François Robere (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. The best course of action would be if he could get this published somewhere, then we could reference it properly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I believe "Under the Railway Line"[31] is based partly on that. He makes the same claims in the second half of the story. François Robere (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
@Piotrus: See here. François Robere (talk) 17:19, 26 January 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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:22, 17 June 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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:35, 17 June 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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Hoax?

Regarding the recent edit war ([32], [33]) instead of duplicating arguments and discussion, I'd direct interested parties to Wikipedia_talk:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#warsaw (this "hoax" is included in that list, and that inclusion is being challenged). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:58, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The admitted presence of misinformation does not, of itself, determine the presence of a hoax. Nihil novi (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

No but being called it but RS does. RS call it a hoax.Slatersteven (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
RS are not the holy cows, and can be wrong. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

This minor camp is absent from most standard accounts of the Holocaust

Apart from lack of sourcing is this even relevant if it was not part of the Holocaust (I.E. not a death camp) why would it be mentioned? This (at the money) both fails wp:or and wp:undue.Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, can someone confirm this campo is mentioned in Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945?Slatersteven (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be an extermination camp to be part of the Holocaust; Nazi concentration camps were also part of the Holocaust (see The Holocaust#Concentration and labor camps). Now, whether this particular concentration camp is notable or should otherwise have a standalone page (WP:PAGEDECIDE), I'm not sure, not having considered the question before. Levivich 16:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
But if RS do not say it is, why do we draw attention to the fact they don't? It is RS that determine if it is part of the holocaust, not us/.Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
RS says it is. To answer your earlier question, I just checked, and yes, the Encyclopedia (which is available for free download at USHMM) includes an entry on it, Vol I, Part B, pages 1512-1515 (so basically I just verified Ref #1). That's WP:SIGCOV, for sure. (And anyway, a concentration camp doesn't have to be part of the Holocaust to be notable.) Levivich 16:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
The question is "which seldom appears in mainstream historiography", does the source support that claim?Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia (p. 1514):

The existence of the Warschau concentration camp is hardly mentioned in standard accounts of the Holocaust. It was doubtless a minor camp in the large scheme of things, but it dispensed more than its fair share of suffering. Thousands of Jews fell victim there to the Nazi annihilationist labor policies. Of the 8,000 to 9,000 inmates who were impressed into the prisoner labor battalion of this camp between the summers of 1943 and 1944, 4,000 to 5,000 of them perished in the course of the camp’s existence, during the camp’s evacuation, and in battle or in hiding after liberation.

BTW, I think that even if it wasn't notable as a concentration camp, it's now notable for the hoax. Just Refs #1-4 each appear to be SIGCOV to me, without considering the other refs. Levivich 16:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I'd say, given the sourcing, it's fine to have this detail (historiographic assessment) in the article's body, put it's not necessary for the lead. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Expansion reverts

I have encountered two reverts by Slatersteven, who insists that my edits have been problematic. See here.

I have just finished translating the Polish GA article to English, incorporating some elements of the English article aready in place. The lead is, in my opinion adequate to the size of the article (ca. 90K); this can be trimmed en route and not reverted in a wholesale manner. I believe that a translation, with some even more sources than in Polish version, if definitely an improvement over what is now.

Slatersteven confused red links with interlanguage links, which have been added according to how they appeared in the Polish version of the article. There mostly refer to street names, but also some other areas where potentially an English translation might be created;

The first edit encountered technical problems, such as a cock-up with sfn templates due to doubling citations, and defined coordinates of the camp twice. These have been corrected before Slatersteven reverted me for the second time.

I have not encountered any "broken link" errors during the time the page was open; other problems ("and more") have not been specified, therefore, I can't say what is happening here. The problem that Slatersteven seemed to have was that I made one edit in bulk (+65K) instead of several consecutive edits, but there's nothing in the rules that prevents such bulk edits to be done provided they are good-faith and do not violate WP:PAG, which Slatersteven evidently even didn't have time to check i.a. because of the abovementioned confusion of interlanguage links. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, what I thought were broken links are links to foreign language pages, which are of little or not use to an English reader (hell some of it could be linked to English Wikipedia pages). Such red links also make the page look untidy. The lede goes into far too much detail on the subject. I would also say your edits do in general seem to consist of a lot that seems only tangibly related to the camp or OR. It looks like a copy and paste with no thought as to flow, syntax or relevance.Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, the folks in Polish Wikipedia have deemed it eligible for GA status and the article has not since deviated much from that version. The criteria for GA in the Polish version are not substantially different from the English GA, so I don't see an issue at all.
which are of little or not use to an English reader [...] Such red links also make the page look untidy. You can always convert what you believe to be useless interlanguage links to plain text - that's not an issue warranting a full-scale revert, if it can ever be considered an issue. hell some of it could be linked to English Wikipedia pages Examples please?
The lede goes into far too much detail on the subject. Again, the case goes for shortening the what you believe to be an excessively long lead and not reverting the article.
As for OR and "only tangible relation to the camp": specific examples please; and even then if for you one or two instances of what you believe is OR (though I made sure not to make it) invalidates the whole translation, then you seem to miss the scale of what you argue to be a bug vs the features of the new, expanded version.
Tl;dr: WP:PRESERVE par excellence. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
We are not the Polish Wikipedia and we have different standards. As to [[WP:PRESERVE], you added far to much stuff for that to be workable. What evidence is there that "ordered to move all German companies operating in the Warsaw Ghetto there, submit them to SS control, and promptly evacuate the camp to the east; however, the idea did not prove to be popular, so it was postponed." for example?Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
It is in the "Genesis" section, para 2. That literally comes from the Himmler's order of 16 Feb 1943 [34], and is again a translation from Polish, with consultation with the resources that have been cited. If you have problems with the Polish version, feel free to correct it. I have seen the sources and they say what is written in the text. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
As to WP:PRESERVE, you added far to much stuff for that to be workable. This is not a good excuse to revert, either. We are supposed to exercise restraint while doing so. There exists no such thing as "preemptive reverting" nor "gatekeeping before I first review any of your changes", otherwise WP:BOLD is stillborn, or dead. Again, you can do your part and simply correct the passages you believe to be wrong.
PS. We indeed are not the Polish Wikipedia and we have different standards, but the gist of the standards remains the same. It's not that the Polish Wikipedia permits original research, allows citing generally unreliable sources without good justification for that or allows unverifiable information in. This is particularly true of articles that are on GA/FA level on the Wikipedias in respective languages, and we know that Polish Wikipedia is among the better maintained. Come on. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
We need the source here. Also where does that source say (quote please as I can't find it) text that supports "however, the idea did not prove to be popular, so it was postponed".Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I can't really insert the source without the source; but there you go: Andreas Mix 2005 paper, if you need the source there. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Btw, the first order from 9 Oct 1942 also orders to assemble enterprises in the concentration camp, it's just for certain sectors: armament workers, who work only in tailoring, fur, and shoemaking workshops. And this one was deeply unpopular, as seen in para 1 of the "Genesis" section. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I am asking you for a quote from the source you link to above, a quote.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Now look how hard it is just to get a quote supporting one line, and imagine that for 600 lines. This is why I say there is way too much to discussSlatersteven (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Quote: Równolegle do deportacji ludności żydowskiej do obozu zagłady w Treblince dowódca SS i policji w dystrykcie warszawskim Ferdynand v. Sammern-Frankenegg zabiegał o uzyskanie prawa do dysponowania znajdującymi się w getcie zakładami, które na potrzeby komanda zbrojeniowego Wehrmachtu przerabiały wyroby tekstylne, skórzane i futrzarskie. W piśmie do placówek SS i Wehrmachtu w GG Heinrich Himmler zarządził na początku października 1942 r., aby natychmiast skupić zakłady "na miejscu" w jednym obozie koncentracyjnym. [...] planowano szybkie utworzenie w dystrykcie lubelskim "kilku zamkniętych przedsiębiorstw w obrębie obozów koncentracyjnych". The resistance of companies towards these changes comes from Kopka source, which I simply don't have with me.
Now look how hard it is just to get a quote supporting one line, and imagine that for 600 lines. This is why I say there is way too much to discuss. I will be clear here, you are doing it wrong.
If you decided to retain the old version until you review the new version (which is explicitly mentioned as a bad reason for doing reverts, see last bullet point), you are simply dismissing WP:BOLD. Unless the problems are extreme (and you haven't really made it clear to me), I ask you to revert to the new revision so that everyone sees it and makes appropriate changes, if necessary. That in particular is the case if you've decided the edit was a good-faith one (and I indeed did my best).
Besides, "checking 600 lines of text" smacks of assumption of bad faith. I mean, I am not going to sit for days finding all quotes to the sources I don't even necessarily have with me at this moment, after sitting for days translating and finding more of those. Let's not make a parody of WP:BRD here, particularly of the D part.
I'm pinging other editors who have participated in this article's edition to intervene: @Dreamcatcher25, Levivich, Nihil novi, Piotrus, Buidhe, Volunteer Marek, François Robere, and GizzyCatBella: Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
No I am invoking wP:brd, you made a bold edit, I reverted.
As you your quote, where does it use the phrase (or similar) "the idea did not prove to be popular, so it was postponed", we know it was postponed, the current version of the article says it. Your claim is that it was postponed as unpopular.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
No I am invoking wP:brd, you made a bold edit, I reverted. As I said, you should have a good reason to revert before you click "revert". It's not like if someone made a bold edit, you have to revert, or you have special entitlement to do so.
As I said, it's sourced to Kopka. I can't quote from there because the libraries are closed at this time of the day, and I don't have the book. I won't be able to do that until at least tomorrow evening. What I only have are pages and a general understanding of how it sounded, but not what it exactly sounded like. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the disputed sentence „ordered to move all German companies operating in the Warsaw Ghetto there, submit them to SS control, and promptly evacuate the camp to the east; however, the idea did not prove to be popular, so it was postponed.” Kopka (pages 31–32) stated: Wzrost pozycji Himmlera oraz jego decyzje napotkały opór ze strony tych, którzy czerpali zyski z niewolniczej pracy pracowników żydowskich, oraz tych, którzy nie byli zainteresowani procesem wzmacniania imperium SS, na którego czele stał Reichsführer. Badaczka problemu Felicja Karay tak w skrócie scharakteryzowała reakcje na dotyczące kwestii gospodarczych plany Himmlera z 1942 r. „Plany Himmlera spowodowały powstanie koalicji antyhimmlerowskiej, w której skład weszły wszystkie organy władzy Generalnego Gubernatorstwa wykorzystujące dotychczas prace Żydow”. Then he mentioned those various actors and few lines later stated Jak czas pokazał, zamiary Himmlera z 9 października 1942 r. nie zostały do końca zrealizowane. Nie udało się skoszarować robotników żydowskich w jednym miejscu i nie powstał obóz koncentracyjny w Warszawie, skąd zakłady produkcyjne wraz z ich żydowskimi pracownikami miały być przeniesione do lubelskich obozów pracy SS.. Hope I've helped.Dreamcatcher25 (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
My two cents: Szmenderowiecki's expansion was significant (3x - from roughly 20kb+ to 60kb+). There were some citation (sfn) errors, those have been fixed in the v2: [35]. Usage of Template:Ill is best practice, and WP:RED links are totally fine. While I see one fact has been disputed, a translated quote has now been provided. If it is still insufficient, that part can be tagged or removed, but one sentence is no reason to revert a major expansion, which (per wP:AGF) seems helpful. I have also reviewed the references. All additions seem properly referenced. The only one tagged by the bot as unreliable is from the older version of that article, to an Israeli-language YouTube video, and I think it should be removed. Others I'd question:
  • possibly wpolityce, see inconclusive Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_328#Sieci_&_wpolityce.pl_&_associated_portals), (also, I AGF Szmenderowiecki's claim that this is based on Polish GAs, which implies it already passed some review and quality standards).
  • Warszawa Express - Warszawski Magazyn Codzienny - very minor / niche Polish portals / news magazine
  • www.suche-briefmarken.de - can anyone comment on this German website?
  • Trzcińska 2002 has been added as as source. Let's remember that she is generally not considered reliable (although I don't think this has been discussed at RSN), although arguably we allow such sources to make claims about themselves. I'd suggest making it more clear when we cite her that she is the source (Trzcińska says...). That said, we should also keep in mind Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Amendment_(May_2021).
In general, I support the restoration of much of Szmenderowiecki's version, but I'd like to see further discussion of the sources listed above, not the least Trzcińska, and honestly I don't feel very confident personally restoring the version of the article that uses her book as a source for anything (and at this second I don't have time to do a partial restore). I'd not object to full restoration, since I think the expansion is generally a step in the right direction, but if anyone thinks some or all of the sources I listed above not reliable, those parts can be reverted and should not be restored (per ArbCom ruling) - but I'd like to stress that many other parts that Szmenderowiecki added and that are referenced to perfectly fine, reliable sources (Getter, Subotić, Mix 2005) are a net positive and should not be blanked. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC) PS. While Trzcińskia is not Irving, this chain of thought got me thinking of User:K.e.coffman, who is also quite experienced in this topic area, and may be able to offer some advice/thoughts on best practices on sourcing here, so let me ping her as well. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
To be clear about the usage of these four sources:
wpolityce: I wouldn't generally use it but it's an interview with Jan Żaryn, and I basically source to his opinion about how the process of resolving the dispute in IPN (where he was working at the time) went. I believe that's usable for Żaryn's opinion on the subject.
Warszawa Express: I couldn't find anything better than that, and at least that looks somewhat credible to me (unlike blogs). Essentially what I wanted is to show the photo of the plaque on Lasek na Kole, but when I came to photograph it and post it on Commons, the plaque... was torn out. So yeah, treat it like a gallery. Unfortunately, I'm not able to contact either Warszawa Express or the photo's author to ask for permission, so the photo is in the External links (courtesy https://warszawamagdalenymarii.blogspot.com/2021/02/ruiny-w-lasku-na-kole.html)
suche-briefmarken is just meant to show there is a postage stamp, because the one that is in the article has a dubious PD status, as do most other German postage stamps. As far as I could see, it was simply a catalogue, so usable.
sourcing to Trzcińska: not a fan of her, either, but that's what it went in the Polish version, and I only source the fragments related to her pseudohistorical concept, not to anything else. That seems to be a legitimate WP:ABOUTSELF usage, with the general framing that her concept runs counter the historical consensus. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@Szmenderowiecki Thank you, I think you defend your case nicely. I have no objection to the restoration of your version, sourcing-wise. We should not be slave to the rules, exceptions, when justified and well argued for, have their place. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Can we please have English translations, we are not all Polish?Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Have Englishmen never heard about Google Translate? Hard to believe...Dreamcatcher25 (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
No, quotes should be translated from Polish. Here is the reading of what Dreamcatcher25 wrote (I don't have access to the book).

Kopka (pages 31–32):

Himmler's rise to his position and his decisions faced opposition from those who profited from the slave labor of Jewish workers and those who were not interested in the process of strengthening the SS empire led by the Reichsführer. The researcher of the issue Felicja Karay briefly characterized the reactions to the economic issues of Himmler's plans of 1942. -->

This seems to be about a general plan, not one specific to a Warsaw camp, correct?Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Himmler's plans resulted in the formation of an anti-Himmler coalition, which included all the organs of power of the General Government which used Jewish labor.

As time has shown, Himmler's intentions of October 9, 1942, were not fully implemented. The plan to house Jewish workers in one place failed, and no concentration camp was established in Warsaw. The production plants and their Jewish workers were to be transferred to the Lublin SS labor camps. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

(responding to ping) Without having read any of this or most of the edit in question, all I can say is that a 65kb edit is too big. It should be broken up into much smaller pieces (no more than one per section, or maybe one per paragraph), so that other editors can easily revert and discuss parts of the edit without having to revert the whole thing or figuring out a partial restore. (Also, 65kb is too long for an article per WP:AS, but it can always be trimmed down later after any other content issues are resolved.) If entirely new sources are being added and they are controversial, it might be better to discuss the sources on the talk page first before adding content to the article that uses the sources, again so that we can separate the parts of the 65kb edit that need discussion from the parts that don't. Levivich 03:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

all I can say is that a 65kb edit is too big If this were somehow codified...
Re size: Well, I just counted the prose size via DYKcheck tool, and it gives me 42,387 characters of readable prose size (+5-7Kb more or less for quotes and bullet points in the article)
According to WP:SIZERULE you invoke, it's just between <40Kb (length alone does not justify division) and >50Kb (may need to be divided, chance increased with length) (WP:sizerule counts readable prose size). So the size of the new version of the article should definitely not be the issue.
If entirely new sources are being added and they are controversial, it might be better to discuss the sources on the talk page first before adding content to the article that uses the sources, again so that we can separate the parts of the 65kb edit that need discussion from the parts that don't. You can simply start from the new version and simply delete some paragraphs or sentences which you believe have problems, or rephrase them. There's no need to delete it before adding it step-by-step, unless there are some egregious problems that warrant such reversal and of which I am not aware of. Again, potential WP:COATRACKing may be dealt with by looking on the expanded version and seeing if something really has nothing to do with the article's subject.
If you allow to restore it on a per-section, or per-paragraph basis (which I will not be able to do unilaterally), I will do that. The text is open to scrutiny, it's just the initial treatment that I'm not fond of. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes I have read of google translate, but it is not a perfect tool, and just adds to the workload.Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

  1. I agree with Slatersteven that big changes complicate things, but translating an article is usually done in one go and that's what we have to work with.
  2. WP:BRD has been watched for the most part, so I suggest putting the procedural discussion aside.
  3. The reasoning for using news media sources is solid. We should keep in mind that use of news media sources is limited to current or recent affairs, and that debunked sources are clearly marked as debunked.
    1. It may be acceptable to use RP for Tr. being assigned to some investigation for now, but I wouldn't use it, nor Polityka, for the 1988 testimonies, as that seems too close to the core of the historical discussion.
  4. A bit too many red links. I'll cut those that refer to street names and churches, as their articles are probably not as relevant to this particular story as eg. biographies.
  5. Otherwise well done on another translation from pl.Wiki. It's definitely an improvement to the article. François Robere (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    @François Robere All red links are encouraged per WP:RED. I'd leave them all in unless we can make a case that something is not notable and should not have an article on Wikipedia. Sometimes pl wiki is too inclusive... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • individual streets are generally not notable.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    Then the case should be made on Polish Wikipedia to delete the page. A mere translation of a notable topic in one language does not render the topic non-notable just because an average English speaker would not think it is notable - we're supposed to be a multilanguage encyclopedia after all. For comparison, see Template:Streets of Manhattan - a borough with a population not even exceeding Warsaw's, yet having expansive articles on individual streets (which is in a lot of ways due to Epicgenius's work). Pl wiki doesn't have articles on all Warsaw streets, either. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    What they choose to do has no impact on what we do. moreover (and again) linking top a page the users here will not be able to read does not help them.Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
    moreover (and again) linking top a page the users here will not be able to read does not help them. Yes and no. Those who know Polish, or German, will benefit from interlanguage links. Those who don't, well, they don't lose anything. And even then Google Translate and similar services can give you a gist of what is happening behind these links. But, again, let's see what you are going to do in the sandbox. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
The testimony is actually mentioned in other sources too: Kopka (1), Kopka (2), and Trzcińska herself; AFAIK Kopka also mentioned the testimony in his 2007 book and has largely dismissed it. I believe it is OK for us to simply mention that such testimony surfaced, but opinions on the testimony are also IMHO relevant, which is exactly what is done in the "Refutation" sub-section. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, it's three days since the revert was made, and I don't really understand what we are waiting for in order to get the edit published and submitted to scrutiny post-publication, and whether there is consensus for its publication (two editors seem to agree with my request to get to the expanded version). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Publish. François Robere (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I would rather you used either this page or the sand box, and we can see if you have taken on abord any of the objections raised here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
    Let's start from the fact that there is no consensus so far for the objections you have raised to be remedied. Let it be done this way. You have the sandbox version here. Feel free to implement changes to the article as you see fit, I will monitor your edits and raise any objections at the talk page of the sandbox. Others are also encouraged to monitor the page. We will then determine if there is any more consensus to withhold the edit's publication. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
    A week has passed with no editing or comments. But maybe User:Slatersteven didn't notice your comment above as he wasn't pinged? Remember, folks, it's best practice to let your wiki-voice WP:ECHO... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    Because I have no more to add, there is no consensus for this (as far as I can see).Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    I thought the discussion would not come to a standstill after my last post, but it has nevertheless.
    Let's summarise your "no consensus" position then:
    - Slatersteven, well, you oppose the change until you check it all. I said that it's not a good reason for revert, pointing to the relevant essay, and I have proposed you to implement changes in the sandbox (none have been done even after you were aware of it so far, which is the moment you certainly were aware of that version).
    - Piotrus seemingly agreed to publish the new version;
    - Francois Robere also did so;
    - Levivich argued that any controversial sources must be first discussed on the talk page (none were specified apart from Trzcińska, to which I provided an WP:ABOUTSELF rationale and so far no one opposed this at all, even for); said that one edit is too long (no response on paragraph-by-paragraph addition proposal); and argued that the resulting text is too long, which it isn't by WP:SIZERULE; no particular stance on the new edit, however, aside from him wanting to scrutinize it more;
    - GizzyCatBella said nothing of the support/oppose, nor did DreamCatcher25 say much about that (but having in mind most of the article is a translation from the article which he rewrote back in 2016, I would argue he at the very least doesn't oppose it).
    - I obviously agree with my own edit.
    Even your argument about redlinking even doesn't have consensus here, as we here disagree on when to use interlanguage links. Plus you have not specified all problems, and I can't really guess what all of your objections are (the only actionable ones were with redlinkning and that first reference, the first of which has no consensus while the other seems so far to have been solved. It seems the ayes have it, both on strength and !vote count. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
What sandbox?Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
See link in the second sentence. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think there is consensus not to add (most). As far as I see, most editors supported the new version, and I think that Szmenderowiecki's assessment above is correct. If User:Slatersteven really feels otherwise, I'd suggest an RfC, but if there is no action for few more days, I think the new version should be restored. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
The second sentence is "I have just finished translating the Polish GA article to English, incorporating some elements of the English article aready in place. The lead is, in my opinion adequate to the size of the article (ca. 90K); this can be trimmed en route and not reverted in a wholesale manner. I believe that a translation, with some even more sources than in Polish version, if definitely an improvement over what is now" I see no link in that, can you please post it again?Slatersteven (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Szmenderowiecki/sandbox/Warsaw_concentration_camp Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
"Consensus not to add" isn't how it works. WP:ONUS means we need "consensus to add". I don't see consensus either way. I still think it'd be easier to form consensus if the new material were broken up into smaller chunks. Levivich 15:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Levivich, Slatersteven But no one is arguing here about "consensus not to add". However, if those who argue the edit shouldn't be implemented can't make a good case of why this edit does not improve the article, it means that the WP:BURDEN challenge fails (see footnote 3 in the section). We are not the US Senate, and WP:ONUS is not supposed to serve as a filibuster tool against any changes to the article.
I'd say even more: the mere fact that the edit is large does not disqualify it, because it doesn't address the merits of the expansion and is a purely procedural argument. If the procedure makes life any easier for any of you, sure, I will try to make the change as suggested, but such argument alone scores rather weakly on the strength of arguments against some change. But again, before I implement it, I have to understand that everyone is on board with such a change, so as to avoid revert wars. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

OK first thoughts, why do we need to mention Hitler "created on the order of Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler" and then in the next line say "The first person known to have come up with the idea of creating a concentration camp in Warsaw was Heinrich Himmler, head of the Schutzstaffel (SS)"?and then (In the same paragraph) "Four months later, Himmler returned to the idea as the plans for the demolition of the Warsaw Ghetto came closer," This is the lede, this kind of detail just clogs it up. This is all said in the first line, hell expand it to "created on the orders of and initially conceived by conceived by Heinrich Himmler". And that is just the first two paragraphs.Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

1. The fact that something was created by someone's order doesn't mean that the idea was first pitched by that same person (and by all indications, Himmler was the first).
2. The paragraph simply sums up the "Genesis" section, so obviously it would condense the main facts from the section. I remind you that you are free to implement changes to the article as you see fit, I will monitor your edits and raise any objections at the talk page of the sandbox. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Its still too much detail for the lede, it is words for the sake of words (as I said about this from the off).Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

B class review

Currently it is C class for the following reason. There are three places where citations are missing. See below. Djmaschek (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

  • Name, paragraph 3. Sentence not cited.
  • Refutation, bullet point 3: Last clause not cited.
  • Commemoration, paragraph 3: Last sentence not cited.
Djmaschek, responding to your notes: bullet point 1 - the sentence refers the reader to the relevant section with appropriate sourcing, though I've added sources there, too, so that no one complains just in case. Bullet point 2 - source added. Bullet point 3 - no such monument has since appeared. What you ask me is to prove a negative, and I can't do that. If there is no source saying the monument is there, it isn't there. The moment it appears, there should be some local news coverage, which I'll add.
Thank you for the review. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
@Szmenderowiecki: I assessed this article as B class. But please edit this sentence: "As of March 2022, the monument in Muranów has not yet appeared." Promise me you will one of the following. (1) Remove the sentence or (2) Put it into a footnote. Thank you. I do not make the rules for B class. This article is not technically B class until you do (1) or (2). Djmaschek (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
I'll put into a footnote. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Warsaw_concentration_camp/Archive_1&oldid=1226568802"