Talk:Warsaw concentration camp/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 21:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Taking this one. Comments follow soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• on the ruins of the Warsaw Ghetto, on the base of the now nonexistent Gęsiówka prison – The first sentence of the lead seems a bit long due to this, and this also confuses a bit. Not sure what the difference between "on the ruins" and "on the base of" is. Maybe remove one to keep it simple for the first sentence?

There are two separate elements: it functioned in the ruins of the Warsaw Ghetto (its task was to get rid of the rubble of the ghetto after all), and the main building of that camp was Gęsiówka. So there are two different elements that I believe have to be mentioned. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course, keeping it is totally ok. I am mostly concerned about Good Article criterion 1: well written. If I stumble above it, others might, too. Could you try to formulate it in a more simple and clear way? Maybe make a separate sentence out of it? Maybe writing "within the ruins of the Warsaw Ghetto" instead of "on the ruins" would make things much clearer already, to show that the camp does not occupy the whole ghetto. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Is it better now? Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• KL Warschau – In German we would definitely use an article, i.e. "the KL Warschau". Why do you use the abbreviation in the first place when "Warsaw concentration camp" seems to be more common?

The usage of the abbreviation is both because Polish sources use it and for stylistical reasons, so as to not repeat "the Warsaw concentration camp" in every sentence, and use synonyms of that name instead. (KZ Warschau is also valid, but I don't really know German, and besides most of the publications about the camp were made in Poland anyway).

For this GA it is ok if you decide to keep it, but: 1) We should use the terminology used in English-language sources since this is the English Wikipedia, and 2) clarity always comes before style. "Use the same word for the same thing" really helps readers with understanding. Because in general, if you use a different name, the reader first has to assume that you mean a different thing. I feel that intermittently switching to this non-English abbreviation is challenging to the reader and adds unnecessary complexity. It makes the article less accessible to people. From my experience, in such situations we in Wikipedia normally would abbreviate with "the concentration camp" or simply "the camp" to avoid repetition when it is clear from the context that this particular camp is meant. But I think other articles do generally not switch to completely different names. For example, Auschwitz concentration camp, which is already GA, does not do this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

This is why in the very first sentence KL Warschau is explicitly mentioned as an alternative name from German, and there is a link to "see other names", where all relevant names are bolded. The very first version of the expanded articles included all names, for both Nazi and Communist camp, though ultimately the Communist names were moved to the section about the Communist camp. The ones most used in reference to the camp are Gęsiówka and KL/KZ Warschau (depends on language). I think I also used the suggested rephrasings (see The camp and adjacent ruins were also used by the German administration as a place of execution and About 380 SS officers were maintaining the concentration camp, approximately the size of a company). As for the frequency of usage, the piece by Christopher Davies uses it, so does [1] this one. Some others (e.g. Gabriel Finder) use Gęsiówka as a shorthand. Others still use the full name, in particular when referring to the Wikipedia error/hoax that persisted for 15 years. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

As for the article "the", I assume that in English, we wouldn't use it. See this piece for reference.

• OK, I was just wondering. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Supporters of the Trzcińska's theory – not sure, should it be without the "the" or "Trzcińska theory"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

It's fine as it is. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

It was the only German camp to be liberated by anti-Nazi resistance forces rather than by Allied troops -->[2]

Where did you get this from Szmenderowiecki?

@ GizzyCatBella🍁 14:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

[3] [4], refs 46 and 72 in the article. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

That might not be correct data. This force also liberated a camp in Czechoslovakia [5] - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I've added an explanatory footnote to that effect. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The information here[6] is on pages 242-243. Your range is 221-274 [7]. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• These new camps were also intended to host Jewish labourers, – the first paragraph of "creation" confuses me, because the formulations suggest that the camp already existed; later in that paragraph we learn that they actually have not been established yet. In the letter dated 9 October, did Himmler mention a planned camp? Reformulate to avoid this confusion?

  The problem is, a concentration camp already existed in Lublin (Majdanek), but not in Warsaw, so I can't call both to be planned. But I have made some tweaks, let's see if this is any better. Also, I've added a ref containing the original order.

• inside a closed and deserted zone of the former ghetto, which was surrounded – I wasn't sure if "which" referres to the ghetto or the deserted zone. I think the former? Maybe write "of the former ghetto that was surrounded" to make it clearer?

  The ghetto was itself a deserted zone, no part of the ghetto survived (treat "deserted zone" as an adjective). I don't think clarification is needed.

• but the whole process was only completed in June 1944 because the inmates had had to undergo quarantine the previous month – I don't follow here; what has the quarantine to do with the camp's completion?
• Is there any more specific article to link quarantine too, or could an explanation be added?

• There isn't any other link for quarantine, but I drew from the other section to explain that there were two quarantines (as written by Berenstein et al.). Better?

• The number of SS guards – Is this the same as "SS officer"? If so, please stick with one term, because here I am really not sure. If not, then we want to know the number of SS guards, I think.

  An officer in military terms is a higher-ranked official; not all members of the military are therefore military officers. Guards are just that, guards (though this does not mean there hasn't been any sort of cruelty from them, quite the contrary).

• The original SS unit, was gathered from various other camps – comma does not belong here I think

• Indeed.

• As Bogusław Kopka shows – why is this name relevant here? We need author attribution if this is an opinion or a controversial fact, but that doesn't seem to be the case?

• There is disagreement between Kopka and IPN's prosecutors' summary. That's why I mention his name, and I've moved the IPN's opinion out of a footnote and into the main text

• The irregularities were so numerous that SS authorities eventually intervened,[47] presumably due to an escape of a Reichsdeutsche prisoner.[9] – This somehow contradicts itself. Did they intervene because of the escape or because of the numerous irregularities?

• I made it more clear that there was some action after which the Germans could bear no more of that corruption bull----, which apparently was an escape of a German prisoner, or so Andreas Mix says.

• the kapos were Germans – "kapos" does not seem to be explained anywhere. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• "They became prisoner functionaries, such as kapos and Blockältester (block supervisors)" (mentioned a paragraph or two later). I've wikilinked the first mention of kapo.
• Please ping me when you see any further suggestions/problems. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• July 1943;[23][30] Among – I suggest a full stop here (or "among" in lower case)
• dollars),[24] however, – needs a ; behind "dollars)"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Szmenderowiecki I still have an issue with using this -->[8] as a source (or any reference to it), if that is to be a GA article. I don’t think you need to be provided the history behind it, do you? - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:07, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  This has been discussed here and it was determined to be OK as a source mentioned in the footnote, as it is at the present stage. If you want to relitigate that closure, you have the closure review. Otherwise, I'm not acting on this request. Enough of spilt electonic ink and wasted time. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, and what the closing person say? there is --> consensus that the Haaretz article used as a source for the footnote is reliable But you using it as a source of information within the article[9]. See also this again -->[10]. If that is to be a GA you need to pay attention to things like that to avoid potential future issues. There is a sufficient amount of quality sources available, we don’t need to use this to source anything. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  You may also reconsider using YouTube as a source -->[11],[12] again, see sourcing expectations for this topic area. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  First, the article in the place you point to is used to refer to the opinions of two scholars interviewed for the piece, Jan Grabowski and Havi Dreifuss, and no one seemed to have any problem with this particular usage of that source. The problem you and a few other editors had is essentially with describing the inclusion of the footnote saying this article misled the public for X years and in particular with the quote "the longest-standing hoax" as giving credence to Icewhiz/feeding the troll, and it was the footnote that the RfC was addressing, not quoting subject-matter experts. Plus, the source has been judged to have consensus to pass WP:APLRS requirements. You should be aware of that closure because you were the one who initially challenged the source, and I'm puzzled by your insistence to ignore it, and I urge you not to continue going that way.

  As for the YouTube videos, as you might read from the relevant WP:RSP entry, Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. One of the videos refers to the an interview with Gideon Greif, a subject-matter expert. The other is a France 24 report about the controversy, which: in the first usage is one among three sources, in the second usage paraphrases Zygmunt Walkowski, who made a report that refuted the extermination camp theory based on aerial photography evidence, and a third usage which sources an uncontroversial fact (where Trzcińska's supporters gather).

  There are no potential issues with these sources. I ask the original reviewer to disregard the comments. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  I entirely disagree with everything you wrote. You may start from contacting one of these editors for assistance and advice. I’ll also follow with more soon. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  Waiting for the "more soon". As for now, I will only remind you that if your point is to effectively overturn that RfC by stalling out the GA review, this won't work. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 05:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  What on earth are you talking about Szmenderowiecki ? - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  To add my two cents here: 1) I don't think that sources for article text must follow higher standards than sources for footnotes; at least I am not aware of any policy here. If this Haaretz article is reliable in a footnote, it should be in the main article too. 2) Youtube is not a reliable source, but in this case, the source is France 24. Again, I see no issue. Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Jens Lallensack I understand and respect what you think, but, there were lengthy conversations (prular) about it with numerous users. It has been decided that the article based on the narrative of a globally banned Wikipiedian is not the best source to use, but it might be used in a footnote only --> consensus that the Haaretz article used as a source for the footnote is reliable. If that is going to be a GA article, that source needs to go from here to make sure the article is stable. Multiple other sources could be used, we don’t need to set up this maybe soon GA article for likely issues right from the start. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Jens Lallensack - Similar but perhaps less severe applies to YouTube as a source for this topic area, please read this. Text referenced might be challenged at any-time (based on the Arbcom's ruling) and the reference with text removed. Please address those issues. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  I still don't see it – could you provide a quote where the RfC discussion states "it might be used in a footnote only"? The article cites the source in a different context as far as I see. Regarding the other point, are you arguing that France 24 is not a reliable source? Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  Please read the entire RfC and ArbCom ruling. As of now, these sources can’t be freely used. For Haaretz (that particular article) consensus has been already established - reliable if used as a source for the footnote. Otherwise unreliable. YouTube is not (read ArbCom ruling again) an article in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution and will be eventually challenged. For a GA article, we can’t have those here. That’s all from me for now. If you want to pass this, please address those issues. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry but this does not answer my question. As far as I see, the RfC merely covers the use of the source for this footnote, but does not exclude its use elsewhere in other contexts. And again, and as pointed out below, Youtube is not used as a source here; the source is France 24. I therefore at the moment don't see that these points go against the GA criteria. Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  Disagree, as to your interpretation of RfC and ArbCom ruling. Is France24 YouTube video an article in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution? -->[13] I didn’t think so. Did you verify what YouTube France24 and the other YouTube video in Hebrew say? If so, how?

  You will need to get a clarification from ArbCom then. - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• by lack of food parcels, as these were not delivered to the camp – this somehow implies that no food parcels were delivered to the camp, which is seemingly in contradiction to "Prisoners' food rationing was meagre", which implies that at least some food arrived at the camp via official ways?
• During KL Warschau's existence – since you already state "In 1943–1944", this seems to be redundant.
• The members of the Sonderkommando were often murdered – no explanation what "Sonderkommando" is. Should be mentioned when introducing "death detachment", or replaced with that word.
• who wrote the foreword to Kopka's work – this seems to be not relevant to the topic
• A total of 3,954 prisoners eventually arrived at the Dachau concentration camp on 6 August,[29] of which there were only 280 Jews – this contradicts at at least 7,250 prisoners, all but 300 of whom were Jews
• head of the Diversionary Brigade Broda 53 [pl] – needs comma at the end
• In light of the new evidence, – what new evidence?
• I am surprised that the "POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews" is not mentioned under "Commemoration", while the plaques are discussed in detail?
• @Szmenderowiecki: That is everything from me, a fine article. And apologies for the delay. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)