Talk:Warsaw concentration camp

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)

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)

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)

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)

• List_of_Nazi_concentration_camps still list the old information. Can someone familiar with this, or with a valid reference book to check, look at that list and check all the camps on it, see if anything looks out of place? Dream Focus 22:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  Done.Icewhiz (talk) 06:10, 17 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)

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:

• https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%97%D7%94:%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%A0%D7%94_%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%96_%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%94
• https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%93%D7%99%D7%94:%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%A8_%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%A8#%22%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%92%D7%93%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%94_%D7%91%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%A8_%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%93%D7%99%D7%94%22

--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)

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)