Talk:Buchenwald concentration camp

The horrors aren't described.

The current text includes this sentence "It was used to house German prisoners, and Soviet records indicate that over 7,000 died." but there is no mention of the numbers who died while the camp was run by the Nazis. Likely the number was 100 times that, or more.... is it really enough to say that prisoners were used for labor? It was *not* a POW labor camp. It was a concentration/death camp.

It is true that it was a concentration camp. But there have been murdered tens of thousands of Russian POW's in a very cruel way.

Koch

This article said that Koch died in Buchenwald, when the page http://www.jewishgen.org/ForgottenCamps/Camps/BuchenwaldENG.html states that he was executed in Auschwitz. Which version is the good one ?..

The nazis executed Koch mainly because the SS found some inmate corpses during an inspection.--83.39.47.38 (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Herman Pister

This page claims he was a Standartenführer, but his bio page claims he was an Oberführer. I doubt he was promoted at some point after Buchenwald was liberated from him, so which is right?108.6.226.190 (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Please explain "denial conspiracism" and what is the precise wiki infringement

Please explain "denial conspiracism" in the context of Eternalllll's addition to the article (below):

The Psychological Warfare Division. Some of the first Americans to enter Buchenwald on Arpil 11th were intelligence officers assigned to the Publicity and Psychological Warfare Unit of the Twelfth Army Group Headquarters. 2nd Lt. Albert G. Rosenberg and his team were in charge of managing a project that involved choosing a dozen inmates of the camp to write a 400 page documentation of Buchenwald. The report was never published in German, but later on translated into English by David A. Hackett. ("The Buchenwald Report"). Eugen Kogon, a former Buchenwald inmate who briefly worked under Rosenberg after the liberation, had been commissioned to rework the report into a German paperback book. His book "Der SS-Staat" is considered a standard work on the Buchenwald camp.

He has previously asked for an explanation as to why this has been deleted, regretably to no avail. And now I have also asked for an explanation of how it infringes wiki policy, without success. Please can one of you has deleted it do us the couretesy of explaining your reasoning instead of editwarring. In what way does the above deleted contribution infringe wiki policy? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

How do we know these were "some of the first Americans to enter Buchenwald"? What is the significance of this material? Someone wrote a book on it. So what? And who said the book was a "standard work" on the camp? I don't see the source for that. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The question was "how does this contribution infringe wiki policy"?

It has previously been deleted numerous times but without an explanation as to why in terms of that policy. Which does rather suggest some kind of censorship based upon some criteria OTHER than wiki policy. You have now addressed the above clear question with "So what" and still no-one has explained "denial conspiracism" as a reason. If people just want extra refrences, why not add a 'citation required' tab for that?

So can I again ask you to please explain how including a short paragraph regarding the origin of one of the most unique accounts of the WW2 concentration camps infringes WP:UNDUE OR ANY OTHER WIKI POLICY.

"The first camp to be liberated in western Germany was Buchenwald, on April 11, 1945. Within days, a special team of German-speaking intelligence officers from the U.S. Army was dispatched to Buchenwald to interview the prisoners there. In the short time available to them before the inmates' final release from the camp, this team was to prepare a report... Nowhere else was such a systematic effort made to... record ...firsthand knowledge of the daily life, structure, and functioning of a concentration camp. The result was an important and unique document, The Buchenwald Report."

"An invaluable report by US Army personnel assembled immediately after liberation of the Buchenwald concentration camp. This vast project, undertaken by German-speaking members of the Army's Psychological Warfare Division..."

Summary: As these secondary sources state, it IS regarded as an "invaluable report" and an "important and unique document" detailing Buchenwald, so again I ask how is a reference to it infringing WP:UNDUE or any other Wiki policy?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A report was written. Why is this report important? Which reliable secondary source described it as "invaluable", and what did it mean by that, especially given that it was forgotten and unpublished for 50 years? Do reliable secondary sources discuss this material? Standard histories of Buchenwald? You are simply asserting it is significant, without explaining why. And why the emphasis on "The Psychological Warfare Division"? We don't even have an article on that topic. Please explain the significance to the Buchenwald concentration camp - and this time, without any ridiculous ad hominem claims about "censorship". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

And STILL no-one has explained what "denial conspiracism" means in terms of wiki policy! :-o That was given as a reason for deletion. So as that was the criteria, and as an explanation has not been given for how that infringes wikipolicy, pointing this out is NOT 'ad hominem'.

Someone else has added the disputed information. I have just asked on what grounds is it being repeatedly deleted. Without a valid reason it only seems fair to undo the deletion.

Finally I have NOT been "simply asserting it is significant" as you accuse. Eternalllll provided a source that regarded it as significant. You 'deleters' need to show why that infringes wiki policy, not demand others show why they think it doesn't! :-o I have provided here on the talkpage quotes taken from secondary sources saying it is an "invaluable report" and an "important and unique document". Those are NOT my words or my assessment which of course would be WP:OR. They are wording from the publisher of the book cited. So why do I or the original contributing editor need to "explain the significance to the Buchenwald concentration camp"? The cited source does that. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, not here to play games - we all know that Holocaust deniers focus on this material because they claim that various things that were alleged to have been done in Buchenwald were not real, but merely part of a propaganda campaign against Germany by, for example, the Psychological Warfare Division - and that, by extension, all claims made about concentration camps are merely propaganda. Regardless, the material was deleted by more than one individual, for more than one reason. The publisher of a book does not count as a reliable secondary source with regards to things like claims of importance, uniqueness or invaluableness. You have not yet explained why it should be added. If you think there is a reason it should be added, explain why explicitly, using reliable secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Leaving 'holocaust denial' aside for the moment, still the original question remains unanswered: "In what way does the deleted contribution infringe wiki policy?" The book publisher ref. was only used in the talk page to make a point. We are discussing the reasons for the deletion of Eternalllll's contribution. His source Nizkor is used all over wikipedia as a reliable secondary source. I am not playing games, and I find your avoidance of simple questions and WP:Gaming here and elsewhere very serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystichumwipe (talk • contribs)

a) Just to clear up what appears to be a misconception, material need not "infringe wiki policy" in order to be excluded from an article. Please review False dilemma. b) If you think there is a reason this material should be added, please explain why explicitly, using reliable secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)