Template:Did you know nominations/Photography of the Holocaust
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Photography of the Holocaust
- ... that most photos of the Holocaust originate from German Nazi photographers? Source: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/36873
- ALT1:... that some photos of the Holocaust have been used as evidence during the war crime trials? Source:https://doi.org/10.1080/03087298.1999.10443338
- ALT2:... that photos of the Holocaust, mostly originating from German Nazi photographers, have been used as evidence during the war crime trials?
- Reviewed: Teikō Shiotani
Created by Piotrus (talk). Self-nominated at 06:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC).
- @Piotrus:
The article is new enough, long enough, and neutrally written. I prefer ALT1 and ALT2, as I feel the ALT0 is obvious. QPQ is complete and Earwig is good. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: ALT0 and ALT3 don't seem to be in the source; it says few photos were taken by the victims, but also mentions photos taken by the liberators, and has no info on the ratio of those to photos taken by the Nazis. I may have missed something, could you please provide the supporting quote? Separately, the article says "Nazi Germany photographers"; the source says "Nazi". Should we say "German Nazi"? There were of course non-German Nazis; "German" is a category the Nazis defined rather differently (including, for instance, Poles "forcibly Germanized" for use as skilled labourers or conscripts); and I didn't spot any information that distinguished the actions of Nazi photographers by nationality. HLHJ (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- I am not opposed to removing the word German, but I think this is nitpicking. Polish Nazi, French Nazi, etc. are not even redirects. German Nazi is a term commonly used. It's common sense that majority of the photos were made by Germans, not collaborators. Italians didn't take part in this, camps and ghettos were run by German administration, etc. Trying to deny the German involvement and primary role seems to me like skirting on the thin ice. Also ping User:HickoryOughtShirt?4. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- Piotr Konieczny, I am not in the least intending to deny the German involvement and primary role in the Holocaust. When I first read the hook, "German Nazi" seemed a bit redundant (I mean, Nazis almost all considered themselves to be Germans), so I tried, without much specialized knowledge, to parse it in a way that gave it more meaning, using modern and Nazi meanings of the word "German". I eventually concluded that it was just redundant. For that matter, "photographer" might be considered redundant when referring to someone taking photos; this is nitpicking.
- My main issue was the word "most" in ALT0 and ALT3. The source says that, unsurprisingly, there are few photos of the Holocaust taken by victims, and many were taken by Nazis. However, there were a lot of people who were neither Holocaust victims nor Nazis, and many of them took photos of the Holocaust. For instance, Allied soldiers took many photos of captured camps. I don't know anything about this, but it seems to me plausible that the Nazis took more photos of the camps than the camp liberators, but also that the liberators took more photos than the Nazis. I'd like a source to settle it one way or the other. HLHJ (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
- @HLHJ: I do agree that reduction of redundancy is good, but it is good to remember many people reading Wikipedia are kids or people from countries where some basics WWII knowledge is lacking. I don't think that a reminder that Nazis=German (effectively) is redundant, and I would not cut it unless the hook is too long. As for the word photograph, I just think it sound good, but I am not opposed to removing it. Finally, the issue of 'most'. It was my impression after reading the sources that most photos cam from the Nazis. Common sense dictates they had few years to take the photos, the liberators, few days (weeks?). But it is not a major issue. How about the following ALT3? (Note the change of German Nazis to Nazi German with the pipe to Nazi Germany)? Feel free to propose a wording that removes the word photographers, I am just not seeing an elegant way right now.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
- I am not opposed to removing the word German, but I think this is nitpicking. Polish Nazi, French Nazi, etc. are not even redirects. German Nazi is a term commonly used. It's common sense that majority of the photos were made by Germans, not collaborators. Italians didn't take part in this, camps and ghettos were run by German administration, etc. Trying to deny the German involvement and primary role seems to me like skirting on the thin ice. Also ping User:HickoryOughtShirt?4. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: ALT0 and ALT3 don't seem to be in the source; it says few photos were taken by the victims, but also mentions photos taken by the liberators, and has no info on the ratio of those to photos taken by the Nazis. I may have missed something, could you please provide the supporting quote? Separately, the article says "Nazi Germany photographers"; the source says "Nazi". Should we say "German Nazi"? There were of course non-German Nazis; "German" is a category the Nazis defined rather differently (including, for instance, Poles "forcibly Germanized" for use as skilled labourers or conscripts); and I didn't spot any information that distinguished the actions of Nazi photographers by nationality. HLHJ (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- ALT3:... that photos of the Holocaust, many taken by the Nazi German photographers, have been used as evidence during the war crime trials?
- ALT3 seems good, Piotr Konieczny, if perhaps not quite so hooky. The fact that there were both official and unofficial, amateur Nazi photographers taking photos of the Holocaust I find striking; it illustrates the societal attitudes around the Holocaust. I have read of both Allied prosecutors photographically documenting camps for legal evidence, and the preservation of camps and running tours through them for an extended period of time (a veteran told me that his unit was trucked to Dachau and toured through it without any warning or statement about what they were going to see; a traumatic experience for a group of new soldiers, probably mostly teenagers). Both of these might drastically increase the number of photographs. One's precise definition of "photo of the Holocaust" might also have a strong effect; do the photos of a modern forensic anthropologist excavating a Holocaust site count? I'd go with something closer to ALT0 or 2 if we can cite it anywhere.
- I take your point on my assuming levels of WWII history education which are not found in many countries. Iran is reportedly particularly bad. "Nazis=German" I have on occasion found problematic, not in the way you use it, but when it is used in a modern context. Anyone who thinks that all modern Germans are Nazis is also in need of some history education (perhaps with an emphasis on the role of stereotypes in war and genocide). I may be overly aware of this from the influence of German refugees, who tended to treat the idea that Nazis=German as a (horribly successful) piece of Nazi propaganda, designed to redefine anyone uncongenial to the Nazis as non-German, non-citizen, an enemy, etc.. I think "Nazi German" works, as a demonym from "Nazi Germany". HLHJ (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)