Talk:Belzec extermination camp/Archive 1

Archive 1

Run by Germans vs. situated in Germany

We need to make the distinction between German = run by Germans and German = situated in Germany. I hope this compromise works:

• Run by Germans
• Who were Nazis
• Situated in Poland

I edited out the explanation of what the General Governement was. We have a separate article on it and trying to explain this complex matter in just one sentence is not enough and might be misleading. The sentence that was there might've lead someone to think that the GG was some sort of a collaborationist government, while it was anything but this. The rest of the proposals seem ok with me. Halibutt 17:33, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

According to historian Witte, gasoline engines were used.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sobibór_extermination_camp http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Peter_Witte

--85.140.12.4 15:34, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Kurt Gerstein - checking his testimony is embarrasing. He obviously wasn't there or had some other problem with observation. He claimed Zyklon B - there were more methods used at Belzec than there were witnesses and historians. Don't you think that one method should be settled on and either explain the others away or at least ignore them - if you are allowed to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.105.80.92 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Romani

The Romani people were also killed en masse at Belzec. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Porajmos.jpg

Yeah. Why it's all "Jews"? --HanzoHattori 09:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing the Gypsy picture, which was not taken at the killing center but at the pre-existing so-calledlabor camp in Belzec, in 1940. See the legend about the picture at USHMM

Ditch

"The ditch was originally excavated for of military reasons, now it was likely to serve as the first huge mass grave." Did it or didn't it? Anyone? Rich Farmbrough 17:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe the wiki article on Richard Krege states that with ground penetrating radar he was unable to find any pits - large or small. Has his work been verified - scientically not by verbal debate.

Richard Krege's work is dubious at best; he never had permission to do the "research" that he claimed he did, and some suspect he never performed it at all. The fact that Fredrick Töben, director of the Adelaide Institute which funded Krege's team, went to the Iranian Holocaust Conference (a Holocaust denier jamboree) -- and apparently didn't even present his "findings"! -- doesn't help his claims. Wingman4l7 (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Death toll

600,000 is not an option. It is an outdated Soviet-Polish estimate, that has been superceded by Hoefle's number. Arad has been able to prove 414,000 from known sources ("Belzec, Sobibor, Teblinka", p. 127), NOT 519,392. Thus, Belzec death toll is known more or less precisely, rounded it is 435,000 Jews. Maybe there were a couple of thousands Gypsies, but sources are needed for this. They don't change the overall picture.

"It is unclear whether the telegram includes Jews killed during deporations or in transit, or the date at which the count was taken, but it establishes an authoratative lower bound from the death toll at Belzec."

Wrong. Unless it is proven that there were more victims, it establishes the authoritative toll itself, not the lower bound. The phrase "or the date at which the count was taken" reveals ignorance - this is the data for the whole of 1942. Belzec worked as extermination camp only in 1942, so this is its complete death toll. --84.167.53.142 21:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right, I was using quotes about Arad's numbers from another source which wasobviously incorrect; looking at Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka does give the 414,000 number. And of course Belzec worked only in 1942, I meant the starting date of the statistics given by telegram was unclear, which was an objection raised by Gord McFee. Thanks for the help on cleaning this up. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops! It so happens I was wrong about Arad. Let me explain. Witte and Tyas (who discovered the document) wrote:

""Arad counted 414,000 from identified towns and townships, estimating 600,000 as the lowest possible number..."

Robin O'Neil, whose article comes up when searched for "414000 Arad" also repeats the claim:

" Yitzhak Arad concluded from published sources 414,000, but estimated 600,000 as the actual lowest figure." http://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/belzec1/bel160.html

Arad's language midled three scholars - and me with them. But of course, on a second reading, Arad says "IN THIS STAGE OF THE OPERATION" - i.e., from July to December. And his table does indeed exceed 500,000.

I should note, however, that it doesn't mean that Arad can be used as an argument against Hoefle. Arad's methodology is described on pp. 380, 381 - he, of necessity, relied on such vague materials as Yizkor books, made assumptions about the number of Jews per wagon, etc. Arad's numbers are not clad in stone. (Neither are Hoefle's, but they're inherently more reliable). I think I will, however, amend the article to give a little bit more perspective on estimates. --84.167.53.142 22:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Very well-done and researched addition, thanks. --Goodoldpolonius2 01:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The guards and SS were housed across the road in two cottages. How many guards and SS were at Belzec. Two cottages seem too few, unless Belzec had a very small contingent. Also the study mentioned ( in main article " Remains of the camp") gives no link other than a Reuters report. Where can this study be read? Link?

Trying to find an independent source for Gora etal the only mention seems to be circular references. PS This and many/most holocaust wiki articles seem to be copied( or distributed ) from very proJewish - as in not scholarly - sites. Is this wiki's intent, I thought these were independent - somewhat originally written pieces. If these are all just copy and paste then why not supply the original copy and paste site also or only. No real need to search the web and run into exactly the same article multiple times.

"This and many/most holocaust wiki articles seem to be copied( or distributed ) from very proJewish - as in not scholarly - sites. Is this wiki's intent, I thought these were independent - somewhat originally written pieces". Ah - being pro-Jewish - is being pro the victims of a crime somehow wrong? I look forward to the well balanced articles that are neutral on the Son of Sam, Boston Strangler etc and not biased towards the victims - lets have more articles from the SS pov!

Wiki articles on Hoefle and Korherr ( and their links ) get the name of one of the camps wrong - used the Allies postwar name for it not the German name. Has this ever been cleared up. The Hoefle memo also talks about arrivals not deaths. Much of the evidence seems to point to Belzec being a stop over point, not even a camp of permanence - probably why it seemed to disappear so completely - Krege et al were never even able to find a foundation of note ( his research of course is open to revision - GPR owners know where to go).

Krege's so-called evidence is nebulous and the man is NOT an GPR expert. His analysis of the data is deeply flawed. Moreover, have you even read the article, which mentions the archaeological work done at Belzec, which discovered the mass graves? Darkmind1970 11:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Krege is an electrical engineer I believe. If anyone has a more qualified individual then he should step forward. If his analysis is deeply flawed then where is there a better analysis. A shovel could clear this up quickly but why spoil the suspense I guess. Yes the work by Kola, I hope is what you mean. Of 236 bore holes, he only mentions 137 of which only 2 are labeled as having human remains. How he extrapolated to 33 mass graves is part of his analysis that I missed - please help with a link to his methods if you have stumbled onto it. Thank you. 159.105.80.141 14:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Jan Karski - in his book "The Secret State" says that Belzec was a transit site. He, in 1942, saw no gas chambers and saw trains "leaving" full of prisoners. Source - his book, he teaches somewhere in the US, or did.159.105.80.141 15:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

One Third of the Holocaust

One Third of the Holocaust Has also a section on Belzec. I think the 600.000 dead story tellers are taking us for a ride. Btw.: Was site used for internment, while Poland was ruled by the Communists?! 41.242.222.240 16:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a well known piece of Holocaust denial crap. Please don't claim to be thinking unless you actually are. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Per some historians there was very little infrastructure at this camp - transit camp only. Karski - in a book - I believe mentioned seeing trainloads of people "leaving" the camp after a short stopover. There wasn't enough for buildings to interest the commies, and there has never been found any appreciable burial sites of any time period.159.105.80.141 (talk) 21:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

WHich historians?Galassi (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

O'Neil, Gora, etc..... in 1998-2003 I believe did etensive research at Belzec. After their archaelogy dig they came up with very little, at least if they "proved" their point they have been unexpectedly quite. Their published paper appears very general, very long but very general. I hope to see a fuller paper done by them someday. The tone of their paper looked more like ardent advocates than detached researchers, but maybe they will prove me wrong.159.105.80.141 (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Unless the idea of Belzec as a "transit camp" can be verifiably corroborated with the abscence of almost all of the 434500 deportees sent to Belzec, the Nazis' own confessions, and the 33 mass graves at Belzec across an area of 21 square kilometers, then this notion has no place on Wikipedia. WilliamH (talk) 18:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Karski - and probably others - wrote that trains left full of prisoners. He of course didn't have a full count, but unless he is considered untruthful he is one source - there are few sources and no real forensic evidence for the numbers above.159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Karski never saw any trains full of prisoners leaving from Belzec because he was at Izbica, which was a transit camp. For this reason, the trains of people were not going from Belzec, but to Belzec to be destroyed. Of the mass graves at Belzec found before the placement of the memorial, all of them contained human remains and/or evidence of burnings. Given this, it would be impossible to physically account for the 434500 figure and to demand so would simply be considered unreasonable burden of proof. Scholars are not at liberty to ignore historical sources and violate Polish law based on an argument from ignorance just because a few people cannot, or choose not to accept the incontrevertable. WilliamH (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have heard that Karski is now unsure of where he spent the 1940s. When he wrote and edited his book =, he seemed quite positive that he was at Belzec - he is the unusual man whose mind gets better with age. 159.105.80.141 (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he was mistaken and he accepted that. He never set foot in Belzec. But 434500 others did. To what extent have any of them supported your notion that Belzec was a transit camp? From which position and with which evidence have they (and the human remains across an area of 21 square kilometers) been able to do this? WilliamH (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Then Karski must have witnessed all the stuff he reported at Izbica. The only problem is that Izbeca was a transit site. So he witnessed what didn't happen at Izbeca and he wasn't at Belzec - it's getting more confusing all the time.159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You are aimlessly stating what has already been established. Karski obviously couldn't have witnessed what was going on at Belzec if he wasn't there, no matter what he insisted. I do not see how this is confusing. You still make no effort to account for the vast amounts of mass graves, and accordingly, the absence of almost all of the people who were sent to Belzec. By all means contribute to Wikipedia with information from verifiable, accurate sources, but until you are able to do this then I see little reason to continue this facile discussion. WilliamH (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we have been able to conclude that Karski knew nothing about Belzec or Izbeca so quickly. Maybe we should not so easily dismiss one of the major witnesses so readily, but so be it - I believe this taints all his "contributions". The work done on finding the mass graves, I believe, is less than conclusive. The report I read by Robin O'Neil, Gora, et al was less than a convincing scientific effort. Maybe you have some other reports, etc you are referencing. Others - deniers - have done more scientific studies and found very few graves/bodies, about what you would expect in a place where people were only held over for transfer(oddly agreeing with Karski's original assertions). Any link to reports etc will be appreciated - I may have read Gora et al when you meant other reports I have missed.159.105.80.141 (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"I believe this taints all his "contributions" - No, it just means you've constructed an argumentum ad hominem fallacy based on the "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" principal. This is not a house of cards. WilliamH (talk) 21:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It certainly taints his testimony on Belzec etc - believers must agree with this, their own idea. At least the acceptance of his "falsus in uno" appears agreeable with all. His "omnibus" probably should be looked at, particularly dealing with related subjects. We have to be careful of the argumentum pro hominem fallacy of "veritas in uno, veritas in omnibus" or the sinister "falsus in uno, veritas in omnibus -1" fallacy. Any links on the definitive studies?159.105.80.141 (talk) 12:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

footnote [1] cites a wikipedia article that doesn't even mention Belzec - Is this legit. Also the fact being cited comes from the arrival numbers given in the Hoefle memo - another wikipedia article. Is footnote[1] a misprint? Are ther any other sources for the 434,500 number other than Hoefle? Wikipedia appears to be breaking new ground - most other reliable sources give much higher - rarely the same or even near each other but different and higher. Any source or is this original research?159.105.80.141 (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Camp guards

I removed this section as it is an unsubstantiated list without much context to back it up. I do think there is some inherent notability to concentration camp guards, but without things like ranks, duties, or whether or not they were willing participants or POWs forced to do the work the section has little to no meaning. AniMate 16:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Escape:

"only two Jews are known to have survived Bełżec: Rudolf Reder and Chaim Hirszman" this is not true, as you can see in the link attached at the end at least 7 escaped (50?). Yoricks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.250.164 (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Year of closure?

Under the heading "Closure and dismantlement", it says, "A last train ... departed in late June as the closing act of the camp", but it is not really clear what year is being talked about. Does anyone know or can anyone point at a suitable reference that would enable this to be clarified? Ondewelle (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've answered my own question: it was in 1943. Ondewelle (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

False reports of Belzec electrocution chambers

The editorial added by Eternalllll keeps getting deleted but without any adequate explanation that I can see. Please can someone explain upon what grounds does the false testimonial of "electrocution chambers" at Belzec, in the book by Stefan Szend, "The Promise Hitler Kept" infringe wiki policy. At present the only reason given that I can see is that it is claimed to be "irrelevant". But in what way it is deemed "irrelevant" has not been explained. The contribution appears to be accurate, comes from source specifically discussing the Belzec camp, and is explicitly about its extermination programme, plus a reliable source has been cited. Can someone who objects to its inclusion explain upon what grounds they object, please. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Some guy made incorrect statements about Belzec. So what? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

They weren't just "incorrect statements". They were dramatic and detailed false accounts concerning this particular camp that were published in book form. How exactly does UNDUE apply here? Can you explain how this contribution gives undue weight to a minority viewpoint or fact? It merely references a factual occurrence of a false testimony that received some historical acceptance, enough that it was published and was also used at the Nuremberg War trials by the prosecution. How is any of that a minority viewpoint? It strikes me as historical fact regarding this camp. Are you perhaps trying to suppress this for some other reason? Or (I ask again) does the inclusion of this in this article in some way INFRINGE WIKI POLICY?

"Camp Belsen (Bełżec) was founded in 1940; but it was in 1942 that the special electrical appliances were built in for mass extermination of people. Under the pretext that the people were being led to the bath-house, the doomed were undressed and then driven to the building where the floor was electrified in a special way; there they were killed." Nurember Trial transcript - Feb 19, 1946 [1] --Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, so they were dramatic and not true. Again, what is the significance? Do reliable secondary sources discuss this testimony? Do historians refer to it? If so, please provide them, and this time without any ridiculous ad hominem statements about "trying to suppress this for some other reason". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The contention is not notable or adequately sourced. The article is concerned with historical fact about the camp, not about controversies concerning eye witnesses. Including an irrelevant tangent about inaccurate accounts is always going to carry the suspicion of the kind of attempts to undermine testimony that is associated with Holocaust denial. Exok (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

1. How is the citation "not adequately sourced"? Can you demonstrate what exactly you find wrong with this: . . It appears to me to be very clearly cited.

2. And how is it not a secondary source (the primary one presumably being the 'eye-witness' who gave the false testimony to Stefan Szend)? Is it not significant that a false report was published and circulated in 1944 based on someone presented as an 'eye-witness' that was so well accepted that it was used by the prosecution at Nuremberg? Is it not those who object to this appearing who need to demonstrate why this historical fact concerning Belzec is insignificant.

3. If people are deleting material they need to provide a valid reason for repeatedly doing so by providing a valid Wiki policy infringement as explanation. This has not happened here. Therefore it is not an ad hominem attack to ask if there is another criteria people are following to exclude this information. And Exok has now provided another criteria: it "carrys the suspicion of the kind of attempts to undermine testimony that is associated with Holocaust denial". I respectfully suggest that deletion based upon merely a "suspicion" of that is not in accord with Wiki policy--Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

1. It's not adequately sourced, because the sources were not reliable secondary sources that discussed this testimony and significance.
2. Testimony from an individual is a primary source. A secondary source would be, for example, a historian who analyzed all sorts of information about this camp, and presented a historical overview of it.
3. People have indeed provided valid reasons for deleting this material, and stating people are "trying to suppress this for some other reason" is an ad hominem argument that violates WP:NPA and WP:TPYES. Don't do it again, and don't bother trying to justify it again.
4. It is up to the person adding material to justify the addition.

To prove this material is relevant, you must provide reliable secondary sources that discuss the material and its significance. That is where we will start. Without such sources, the rest of this discussion is a WP:DISRUPTive waste of time. Provide those reliable secondary sources please. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

1 You appear to me to be applying a higher standard here than to other sources included. WP:NPOV

2 We are in agreement here. Stefan Szend was not the primary source. Therefore he is a secondary source.

3 That does NOT adress my issue. I find this to be a slightly threatening and a superior, bullying tone, and it appears to be merely for holding a diffent opinion?! :-o (E.g. "Don't do it again".)

4 "...justify the addition" sure. But only in the case where a valid wiki infringement has been pointed out. That hasn't happened here. Another criteria has been applied, asExok revealed, (see point 3). Can you please address that.

I am not trying to be disruptive. I am trying to keep the article informative and neutral. Please do not make this personal. Lets deal with content and application of wiki policy. Of course we must provide reliable secondary sources, that is not in contention. A bullying, superior tone does not help reach agreement. If you think that asking for a valid, neutral and consistent application of wiki policy is disruptive then we perhaps need to go for arbitration --Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no need for arbitration because there is consensus. When making a contentious edit, the burden of finding policy to support a position falls on those adding the new material; it's not the responsibility of those opposing you to convince you that you're wrong. 09:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. This means that decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms."

And "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." --Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You can seek further guidance at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard. However consensus appears to exist not just in this one place but also on the talkpages of the other articles - Joseph Mengele and Buchenwald concentration camp - where you've been seeking to push your WP:POV. Is Eternalllll your WP:SOCKPUPPET by any chance? Exok (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

B-class review

Failed due to insufficient citations. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The article's title

Should this be "Bełżec extermination camp" or "Belzec extermination camp" ? We are using German name for Auschwitz, not Polish "Oświęcim" and Sobibor extermination camp, not "Sobibór". Why Polish spelling here ? --Lysy^talk 16:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME it should be Belzec. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It was moved from its original name - I've restored it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The ambiguity in WP:COMMONNAME has since been resolved to be clear that the guideline does not relate to fonts. Therefore the WP:AT consistency title should be restored. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Bełżec extermination camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005191
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.belzec.org.pl/
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.retecivica.trieste.it/triestecultura/new/musei/risiera_san_sabba/brochure/Risiera%20inglese%20per%20e-brochure.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-elsner/a-new-nazi-war-crimes-tri_b_438428.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bełżec extermination camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://photos.nasza-klasa.pl/6541471/3/other/std/ccdbbd6ade.jpeg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151029003413/http://www.belzec.eu:80/articles.php?acid=77 to http://www.belzec.eu/articles.php?acid=77

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bełżec extermination camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151029003413/http://www.belzec.eu/articles.php?acid=77 to http://www.belzec.eu/articles.php?acid=77

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bełżec extermination camp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110213052322/http://www.majdanek.eu/articles.php?acid=186 to http://www.majdanek.eu/articles.php?acid=186

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links...

Just to dot the i's and cross the t's - can we have a good explanation of why the external link is being removed? It would be nice to have a quick discussion so if need be, the page can be semi-protected rather than just edit-warred over. On first glance - the link seems at least somewhat relevant - at least as relevant as this or this YouTube video. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• To be clear, I'm personally not against the link, although I didn't really give it that close a look. The issue is the disruptive editing and the ethnic slurs and personal attacks in the edit summaries. As this editor is using various IPs, blocking is pointless. Protecting the article(s) and then having a calm discussion here about the merits of the link would be ideal. Perhaps I'm being overly emotional, but I don't like "rewarding" someone disruptive and openly bigoted by simply letting their edits stand. To leave the edits as is but then RevDel the edit summaries sends a bizarre message. freshacconci (✉) 15:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I rev-deleted the edit summaries because they contained ethnic slurs. That’s a separate issue from the adding of a link. I can’t justify semi protecting if no one is giving a reason for excluding a link to an article by an author who is, while polarizing, still used as a source elsewhere in Wikipedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
    • What about WP:BRD? Even in situations when an edit is placed in good faith, if another editor objects the usual process is to remove the contested material and discuss on the talk page. This is regardless of whether the proposed change is good, bad or anything in between. If the original editor then proceeds to restore their edit without discussion, protection is often the result. My only concern here is having a simple discussion as to the merits of the link, ignoring the actions of the disruptive editor. The link may be harmless, it may be useful, but per WP:EL we do need to vet links to avoid link rot. And given the charged nature around articles dealing with the Holocaust, and particularly because we have an editor who is using ethnic slurs (which I believe was originally targeting another editor), caution is the better option. Fine, no protection is possible but I'd like to see the link remain out of the article until we get some simple consensus here. freshacconci (✉) 15:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
      • And as I wrote the above, the editor was at it again. freshacconci (✉) 15:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• The link itself: I read the article being posted. It's written by Jan T. Gross and according to our article on him, there's some controversy surrounding his comments that the Polish killed more Jews than the Germans (which is easily refuted by any decent historian). The external link in question is about Polish "peasants" harvesting gold and other valuables at the death camp sites. While this may be accurate, the tone of the article, with statements such as the "killing fields of Sobibór, Bełżec, and Treblinka were neglected by the Polish authorities for decades..." and Gross' reputation, this article is rather WP:UNDUE given the topic (a link in the Gross article would be sufficient). Given the anti-Polish nature of the IP's slurs and Gross' own issues with Poland and the Polish people, and the current issue with the Polish government distancing the Polish people from any responsibility for the Holocaust (which I feel is fair; save for collaborators, the Polish people do not bear responsibility for the Holocaust or the treatment of Jewish people during the war), I'd say adding the links to any of the articles is firmly WP:UNDUE, particularly out of context, and the addition of the link by the IP editor is at best WP:POINTY and probably an attempt at anti-Polish slander. freshacconci (✉) 16:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
  • And that's what needs to be put on the page to justify why the link is being removed. It would have been best practices to justify the removal at some point - the IP is probably engaging in pointy behavior - but that's not an excuse to not at least explain on the talk page. Do the others that have been reverting agree or are there other issues? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Verbally abusing others in summaries, racial slurs, and grossly insulting language ... in the process of "adding little ex. links" to articles are not two separate issues by any stretch of the imagination for me unless we ourselves are bigoted enough to ponder the question of the links' validity aside from Wikipedia's behavioural guidelines, as if those guidelines weren't important enough in dealing with racists who are crippled by hate. Poeticbent talk 16:10, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Would pending changes work better or just plain semi-protection? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• I asked EdJohnston for semi-protection already,[2] but I would appreciate if you did it (across the board), and stop the bleeding, please. Poeticbent talk 17:05, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

June 2019 edits

I removed this photo as it doesn't support the text (nor is it clear when it was taken). I moved the student cleanup to the 1990s, as the text refer to cleaning by students in the 1990s, not the 1950s or 1940s. In this edit I removed content that was not present in the cited source, and entered a description of events in the 1940s and 1950s that is present in the source that was cited (in the previous page, which I added as a citation). Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Misleading map

Re: [3]. Modern map could be useful for tourists, as long as it is clearly labeled, but overall historic maps from a particular time period might be preferable. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#Locator_map_for_battles for a bit of how-to if anyone wants to work on this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)