Talk:Mauthausen concentration camp

"If there is a God, he will have to beg for my forgiveness"

It appears so. Rhys Lowe saw the carving on cell block 20 of the prisoners' barracks at Mauthausen, and another, "Bob Lucky" saw it in a film presented im the camp; [In the museum the attendant put on a movie in English just for us, and we sat by ourselves in an auditorium watching the history of Mauthausen. Another couple joined us part way through, but that was it. The line from the movie that both Len and I remembered most was a bit of grafiti scribbled on the wall by one of the doomed prisioners. "If there is a God, He will have to beg my forgiveness." http://www.boblucky.com/Biking/Danube/day3.htm]. More evidence and references would be needed I'm afraid. -PAR1138 (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Was this really scratched onto a cell wall by a Jewish prisoner? I have heard that it was. If it was, should it be mentioned in the article? 138.38.11.13 (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

As striking as it may seem, I'm afraid wall scribblings are too un-encyclopaedic. Or am I wrong? //Halibutt 14:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This quote is confirmed by a documentary video available on the http://en.mauthausen-memorial.at/ website. The relevant section is at 19mins 20secs. http://en.mauthausen-memorial.at/db/admin/de/showvideodetail256.php?cvideo=39&cbereich=1&cthema=347 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.134.122 (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Major problems with citations

For being a featured article, I consider this article for having serious lacks and problems when it comes to inline citations. A lot of the citations used, are in polish, which is completely ok with the referencing policies, but it makes it harder to clean up for a non-polish-speaking editor. I could start tagging, or even suggest a demotion of the article, but I don't want to do it if the problem could be fixed other ways. The language is may not brilliant according to todays expectations for new FA, but I think it is good enough for survival if other problems are fixed, and the article seems balanced and all that stuff (I doesn't dare to set it up against the good article Auschwitz, as the latter got far easier access to reliable sources).

To be more accurate: Examples of lacks is lack of publishing house or year published, use of "op.cit" (see WP:IBID, sources that are really more footnotes than sources, sources which is unclear what it is ("'Człowiek człowiekowi... Niszczenie polskiej inteligencji w latach 1939-1945 KL Mauthausen/Gusen' Rada Ochrony Pamięci Walk i Męczeństwa, Warszawa 2009" - what is this?? Does it have pages?), sources in foreign languages without the right tag for language. There are also problems related to lack or wrong use of cite templates.

Suggestion for early clean-up is to make a list of books used for citations (not mixed with further reading). Such a list could replace "op.cit"-referencing, and makes a better overview of the sources (see WP:CITESHORT.

This post is ment for suggesting constructive improvements, though I've seen it in the light of the fact that it is featured. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently on vacation, or more precisely my honeymoon. I'll be happy to address your issues some time next week. 89.68.150.236 (talk) 00:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to log in, sorry about that. //Halibutt 00:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Enjoy your vacation. See you in a week or so. Grrahnbahr (talk) 09:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm back :) First of all, thanks for converting footnotes from one system to another. As you know this article is pretty old now. Back in the days there weren't that many options when it comes to text formatting.

Luckily I have most of the books on my shelve and I'd be happy to answer any specific questions you might have. As to the specific issues you raise:

1. Refs in Polish - indeed, most works I used when writing this article are in Polish. As usually, there was a choice of either writing a mere stub with what little info is there in English-language publications, or use the monographs in other languages. I chose the latter option. I believe there is nothing wrong with that. Some topics (probably most of them) are not yet covered in English language works, and this is especially true to the history of Central Europe. Auschwitz is probably an exception here as it is a symbol, popular around the world and one can find works on its' history in most languages I guess. Mauthausen-Gusen is another matter completely. It seems there's not a single monograph of the camp in English. Anyway, I added trans_title parametres to all refs just in case, I also corrected some title translations that were already there. All refs are also properly marked with the language tag.
2. "The language is may not brilliant according to todays expectations for new FA" - I'm afraid you'd have to be more specific than that. Like you, I'm not a native speaker. The article has been repeatedly edited by native speakers who improved my prose considerably, but there still might be some glitches I guess. You'd have to point me in the right direction though.
3. "set it up against the good article Auschwitz" - well, actually it's more complicated than that. There's plenty of works on Auschwitz out there. However, as the topic is so popular, it's actually harder to find a good monograph of the camp among hundreds of poorly-referenced and poorly-written popular history books. This is but a sidenote though.
4. "Examples of lacks is lack of publishing house or year published" - I can't see any refs missing a publishing house or a year of publication. I corrected one year of publication recently ("Poprzez Dachau do Mauthausen-Gusen" by Adam Myczkowski had no year on the front page so I initially used the year used in the printing press note; I corrected it to the year used by the National Library index). I doubt that's the problem you mean though. Could you please be more specific?
5. "use of "op.cit" (see WP:IBID)" - the page says that op. cit. is "less problematic" than the "discouraged" ibid. Do you really consider the current reference system problematic? I mean most articles I write nowadays use a much clearer distinction onto footnotes, citations and bibliography (cf. Battle_of_Warsaw_(1831)#References). This system was unavailable back in 2006, when I wrote most of what you see here. Anyway, I started to separate then citations from bibliography, but completing the task might take some more time.
6. "sources that are really more footnotes than sources" - converted all of them to proper footnotes
7. "sources in foreign languages without the right tag for language" - again, all of them have tags I believe. Or do you mean something else?

Regards, //Halibutt 10:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

@Grrahnbahr: are you still there? //Halibutt 23:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm still here, but haven't worked on the Norwegian article for a couple of weeks. Grrahnbahr (talk) 22:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Lack of Facts

The article lacks scientific and historical value, it's religious. The quoted Polish sources are from the 1960s, when communist propaganda in the former Eastern Block was on its peak. And yes, Poland has an anti-German hate industry. That's how it is and what makes up Polish identity. This inflated hate served for the ideological take over of ethnically cleansed territories that were conquered by Poland. And the count the former non Polish habitants as "there" victims, so to get an inflated number for Polish sufferings. Many people start realizing how much propaganda is involved with buzz words like concentration camps, and how little serious history is actually available (the article doesn't even quote one). But people begin getting critical with Western propaganda, asking questions, having doubts about "official" history etc., and make up their minds from other sources than Wikipedia. That's good... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.212.88.115 (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@125.212.88.115: and your point is... what exactly? Go ahead, I read all of the books I used when writing this article, I even have most of them on my bookshelf, feel free to ask specific questions about them or raise concerns about this or that source. But criticising them just because they were written in Polish... well, that's hardly serious, is it. BTW, there's plenty of reliable scientific publications in the bibliography section, and the article makes extensive use of those. Did you actually read it? //Halibutt 20:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

FAR needed

This FA, promoted in 2006, has fallen quite far relative to standards. There are link farms in See also and External links, there are sources listed in Bibliography that are not used as Citations, there is an inconsistent citation style, there are numerous MOS issues (eg WP:ENDASH on number ranges, WP:MSH, inconsistency between use of en- and emdashes, and more), there is hidden text, an unnecessary photo gallery, lists that should be prosified, and a lot of uncited text. Unless someone is able to bring this article to standard, it should probably go to WP:FAR for a review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by :) As to specific issues:

1. Link farms in "See also" - none of Wikipedia articles listed in the see also section appear to be link farms
2. Link farms in "External links" - again, I removed two outdated links and updated one of them, but none of the links appear to be to a link farm.
3. "sources listed in Bibliography that are not used as Citations" - Per WP:FURTHER there is nothing wrong with having a "Further reading" section in the article. Or did you mean something else?
4. inconsistent citations style - all citations are in {{sfn}} now. The work is never complete as people will keep adding refs in their preferred style regardless of whether I prefer sfn or any other style.
5. Hidden text - I couldn't find any. Could you please point me in the right direction?
6. Photo gallery - are you suggesting galleries of pictures are banned? They are not. Let's talk in WP:Gallery terms, but you would have to be a tad more specific. I believe the gallery illustrates the topic better. If you believe otherwise - let's talk :)
7. WP:MSH: what's wrong with the sections as they are? Please, be more specific.
8. en dashes and em dashes - I believe I corrected all en dashes, let me know if I missed some. Some help would be appreciated.
9. "lists that should be prosified" - again, I disagree. If I remember correctly, the list of companies was introduced specifically after someone asked for it to be turned into a list during GA/FAC procedure. In any way, WP:EMBED does not ban us from using lists when their use is justifiable (for instance when the alternative would be a really long sequence, as in the case of lists of companies). Or did I get you wrong and you meant something completely different?
10. Uncited text - again, you would have to be more specific. What fragments need additional citation? Sure, I write most of my recent articles with one ref per sentence, this article is almost a decade old when using citations at all was a pretty uncommon thing, but I believe I can still supply you with citations. But you would have to point me in the right direction :)

//Halibutt 14:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Halibutt ... I am out of time for this morning, but will get back to you soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm back ... sorry for the delay! You may be aware that FA standards have changed significantly since 2006, and in the last few years, processing of older FAs at Unreviewed featured articles fell at least five years behind! Per your numbered list (above:

1. The problem with the See also list is that it engages a question about the comprehensive crit. of Featured articles. In undeveloped articles, the "See also" section is typically a place where items that need to be incorporated into the article are "temporarily parked". FAs are expected to be comprehensive, which typically means that anything that should be mentioned in See also should have been worked in to the article as a link, where possible. It isn't always possible to link every relevant article in the body of the article, but exceptions are rare. It doesn't appear in this case that all of the See also items could not/should not be mentioned and linked somewhere in the article to satisfy comprehensiveness.
2. On external links, similar. In a Featured article, because it should be comprehensive, anything extraordinary mentioned in ELs warrants explanation. I don't think most of those belong ... as an example, the link to Holocaust Survivors Oral History Project might be relevant as a Holocaust EL, but is extraneous here. I see little justification for many of the links there, in a fully developed, hopefully comprehensive article.
3. Further reading shows the same problem. The excess in all of these areas leads to concern that either the article is not comprehensive, or items are included that need not be. For example, this is en.wiki, meaning that Polish sources need not be included. If they are included, why? Has content from them not been included? Just a sample concern ... All of the sources listed as Bibliography items should be used as citations, or Further reading should be justified, and all harv big red ref errors should be eliminated.
4. Citations are still inconsistent and there are still harv ref errors: sometimes the date is included on short refs, and sometimes it is not. New editors might add inconsistent citations, so it is important to keep FAs watchlisted and stay on top of the routine maintenance items.
5. Hidden text, sample in the box of "Death Toll Statistics Gusen I, II and III"
6. I don't see that WP:GALLERY is adequately complied with. For example (as but one), "Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made." We have Commons links. In FAs, galleries are useful for illustrating, as one example, art or architecture articles; I think the gallery here (along with ELs and Further reading and See also) can all be pruned. A concise and trim article is more useful to the reader.
7. WP:MSH corrected ... avoid the use of "the" and repetition of higher-level headings and title.[1]
8. Dashes: most of the article seems to use spaced WP:ENDASHes, but in the lead, I find an unspaced WP:EMDASH, for example, at "it was referred to by the nickname Knochenmühle—the bone-grinder". Also ... the prisoners were confined at sub-zero temperatures—without adequate food or water—for several days ... Let me know which you are using, and I will recheck. I'm also confused about what looks like unnecessary hyphens, for example "The reasons for sending them to work in the "Punishment-Detail" were trivial ..." is that a translation issue? Another example: sub-camp or subcamp? and others ...
9. Lists that could be prosified: see the section "Treatment of inmates and methodology of crime" ... that list is just not "brilliant or professional prose", and another problem is the use of the list leads to questions about which on the list are cited to what source. That list can be converted to professional prose.
10. The uncited text is considerable ... I am loathe to add cns tags to a Featured article, but will do so if necessary once everything else is dealt with. Please note that all data and quotations should be explicitly cited and opinions should be cited and attributed ...

Additional:

1. WP:MOSNUM, sample, From late 1940 to 1944, the number of inmates per bed rose from 2 to 4 ... should be two to four.
2. Images ... many of the captions have incorrect punctuation, and there is text squeezed between images (image placement issues).
3. A one-sentence section under "Staff" ... raises issues of short, stubby prose and comprehensiveness, or article organization ... is that all that can be said about staff?

There is more ... the article needs a good deal of updating to meet current FA standards, but so as not to overwhelm, I will stop there for now. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)