Talk:Auschwitz concentration camp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleAuschwitz concentration camp has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 30, 2013Good article nomineeListed
October 25, 2018Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Header image change[edit]

Auschwitz II gate in 1945

The header image of the article was recently changed. The new choice doesn't seem ideal for several reasons; it is a modern photo which probably does not closely reflect what the area looked like during the war, and it looks too cheerful for the subject matter. I think that it would be best to use a historic photo, because that's closest to what is being discussed in the article. Also, the main gate at Birkenau is iconic, and represents how most victims arrived at the camp. How about this image? buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 15:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Auschwitz II gate in 2009
Auschwitz I gate (the main gate) – current image
Auschwitz main gate (with "Arbeit macht frei" sign), 2014.jpg
Eingangstor des KZ Auschwitz, Arbeit macht frei (2007).jpg
Auschwitz I entrance snow.jpg
I think I agree with removing the colour photograph and replacing it with that suggested. The latter is not only iconic—I admit I'm not too sure how its replacement is cheerful though!—but it gives a (literally) broad perspective of the subject. The colour photo shows a close-up of one particular aspect of the camp—the gate—whereas the B&W hints at the extent of the operation, which I think is far more worthwhile. Although arbeit macht frei is, arguably, iconic in its own right, it has its own article into which the specific gatework image fits nicely. Per WP:LEADIMAGE, should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see; so an image of the camp itself, rather than just its gate, fulfils that criterion. ——SerialNumber54129 15:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Cheerful? Buildings long abandoned, and no human or animal life anywhere in the picture seems cheerful to you? Dimadick (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Dimadick: To be fair, I think the "cheerfulness" might e reflecting that the photo is from a bright spring/summer day—if you read my comment, you'll see I questioned the word too. But that criticism is really no criticism at all: see MOS:LEADIMAGE. ——SerialNumber54129 17:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The lead image should be of the main gate of the main camp, with the Arbeit macht frei sign, not the gate of Auschwitz II. The latter was first built in 1943 and the tracks laid in 1944. Can we see a source, please, confirming that this "represents how most victims arrived at the camp"? I was glad to see the change to File:Auschwitz-Work Set Free-new.JPG because I'd been considering making it myself, especially given the recent confusion over whether this article was about Auschwitz II. I was thinking about using File:Brama Arbeit Macht frei.jpg. Neither that nor the current image can be described as "cheerful". Anyway, that's what Auschwitz looked like; it didn't exist in black and white. Alternatively, we could use images of both camps, such as File:Auschwitz e Birkenau con neve.JPG. SarahSV (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • If there's a preference for images that aren't sunny, I've added a few. Bear in mind that we're writing a history article, not making a film. Auschwitz didn't exist in some dark corner where the sun never shone and there was no colour. The main camp consisted of quite normal-looking buildings. Parts of it could have been apartment blocks anywhere in the world. SarahSV (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm supportive of the original image, as shown in this version. The article is about the concentration camp complex, not Auschwitz I. The original image is more representative. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    K.e.coffman, more representative of what? I'm puzzled that anyone would think an image of Auschwitz II is more appropriate than the main gate of the main camp. As you say, this article is about the whole complex, not about one of the camps. The main camp was the headquarters of the complex. SarahSV (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    Noting that I've tried it with both images and moved the map to the next section. SarahSV (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Diannaa, re: this edit, why do you prefer a source that mentions the survey in passing, rather than a news item about the survey? SarahSV (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

We're quoting Posener, from this article. Why not use that as our source? since it is the actual source of the quote. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
There's no need to quote Posener. We should summarize in our own words, and if we mention the survey, it's better to use a source about the survey, rather than a source that mentions it in passing. The article you removed contains more information about it. Better still would be to find a primary source. There are similar issues with the sourcing elsewhere, e.g. using Rees rather than the secondary sources he uses. It's fine to do that if the other sources are hard to find, but I think at least some of them should be replaced. SarahSV (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the quotation for now and will add something on that topic later when I have more time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I've rewritten it a little and added another survey in which 45 percent of 1,350 American adults could not name any of the German concentration camps, and 22 percent said they had never heard of the Holocaust. It would be interesting to add something about the extent to which Auschwitz is taught in schools in various countries and from what age. SarahSV (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


What number or percentage of inmates evacuated with the Germans before the Russian troops arrived? Where were they transported to? 2601:181:8301:4510:45F5:1C88:6FDD:CD3A (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Spóldzielców ?[edit]

Are you sure it's a memorial name? It's a typical Communist name without any connection with reality. Piwniczna may be also a neutral name, any sources?Xx236 (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Xx236, thanks for pointing this out. The paragraph was sourced to Google maps, with no secondary source supporting a connection of all the names to Auschwitz, so I've removed it. SarahSV (talk) 21:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Bordell[edit]

There existed one in the camp.Xx236 (talk) 10:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Citation query[edit]

The article relies heavily on Steinbacher 2005. This is cited as

  • Steinbacher, Sybille (2005) [2004]. Auschwitz: A History. Munich: Verlag C. H. Beck. ISBN 0-06-082581-2.

The details don't match the ISBN. Did the person who added this use the 2004 Verlag C. H. Beck edition (Auschwitz: Geschichte und Nachgeschichte), the Ecco edition that matches the ISBN, or the more common Penguin Books edition? The pagination may differ. SarahSV (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Siemens, Deutsche Bahn and Auschwitz[edit]

Siemens built a concentration camp in auschwitz. it has the name bobrek. you can read this in the article of bobrek concentration camp.

Siemens also built trains. trains were used to transport the jews into concentration camps.

The Deutsche Bahn is the firm, that deported jews to Auschwitz and other concentration camps. the deutsche bahn was the "Deutsche Reichsbahn"

Krupp wanted to built concentration camps in auschwitz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:7A:4F0D:2400:CDE6:19BD:9459:A8B (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Christianization of the site[edit]

Please explain the site. The subject is the camp and all mentioned problematic places are situated outside the camp. Xx236 (talk) 14:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2019[edit]

Delete the last sentence in the third paragraph of the After the war -> Trials of war criminals section seems misplaced. It likely refers to the execution of Rudolf Höss, but follows after statement on Hans Münch (who died around 2001):

Change: "... Hans Münch, an SS doctor who had several former prisoners testify on his behalf, was the only person to be acquitted.[264] Arrested by the British after the war, he testified at Nuremberg before being extradited to Poland. He was hanged in Auschwitz I on 16 April 1947."

to: "... Hans Münch, an SS doctor who had several former prisoners testify on his behalf, was the only person to be acquitted.[264] Arrested by the British after the war, he testified at Nuremberg before being extradited to Poland." Gakulev (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Gakulev, thanks for pointing that out. The second and third sentences were stray sentences about Höss. The Münch material now stops at "the only person to be acquitted". SarahSV (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)