Talk:IBM and the Holocaust/Archive 1

Archive 1

AGREE DO NOT DELETE

Editors will note a recurring effort by IBM and or its employees and supporters to either delete, influence or otherwise water down this article for obvious reasons. There are a million copies in print in 60 countries. The book, a NY Times best seller, has been the basis of numerous international lawsuits, a collection of documentaries, and years of articles, reviews and History Day school reports. I read the entire book, and I count more than a thousand primary footnotes. IBM has never denied the documentation. Anyone is invited to see www.edwinblack.com or www.ibmandtheholocaust.com. Wikipedia should not be misused to censor information about the Holocaust. Paramount —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.236.187.50 (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE

This article simply needs to be rewritten / organized, it has been edited quite a bit, and should simply be a small article summarizing the book .

It is not under any deletion process currently - I removed the WP:PROD tag, which anyone can do. It is unlikely that it would be deleted under any process in the future as it is very well known book.John Z (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I made an error in Judgment in tagging [WP:PROD]. I'm Sorry. Tsubasa (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No apology at all necessary - I was replying above to someone who didn't sign. Regards,John Z (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

DO? DELETE

This article has no citations and from what I understand just gives a summary of the book, which may just be the author's unreferenced opinion. It was up for deletion previously and stayed, pending improvement, but the last discussion (above) was in October, since when the article doesn't seem to have improved to a reasonable degree. I vote propose deletion again. -M.Nelson (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to just edit it, rather than delete it? Certainly anybody is free to do so, and chances are that less energy would be spent cleaning it up than in the likely debate that would erupt over whether or not to delete it... --Rich0 (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I am an IBMer (see my talk page) who agrees with Rich's opinion that the article shouldn't be deleted but instead should be edited. The lessons to be drawn from the experience of foreign corporations in Germany prior to and during WW2 are hugely significant, because unfortunately - people being people - history is likely to repeat itself (some would argue it has already), and businesses and individuals will once again be faced with the same moral dilemmas people faced in the 1930s. So whether or not one agrees with the facts Black presents or the conclusions he draws I think misses the point - the book is important in that it has sparked considerable and valuable debate around the topics of corporate morality and individual accountability. I think this article would be much improved were it to reflect that debate. Paul C. Lasewicz (talk) 20:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

AGREE DO NOT DELETE AND NOTE PAUL LASEWICZ WAS INVOLVED

Editors be aware as others have stated that IBM and or its employees and supporters may either try to delete, influence or otherwise water down this article for obvious reasons. Here it should be noted that Paul Lasewicz--one of those in this discussion-- was the actual archivist who blocked Edwin Black's access to the documents, according to numerous reports written and otherwise. I checked and indeed he was the IBM archivist at the time. Black has offered many lectures, which can seen on youtube or Book Tv or through www.edwinblack.com or www.ibmandtheholocaust.com, thoroughly documenting what IBM did and knew, and that documentation in large part uses its own internal correspondence. IBM has never even denied it. The documents are often publicly shown. Check Hollerith Denial on www.ibmandtheholocaust.com for the many eminent publications, websites and reviewers that have publicly retracted their comments after relying on IBM misinformation. I echo the remarks of another poster who stated Wikipedia should not be misused to censor information about the Holocaust. Nor should it allow IBMers or their surrogates to whitewash this never denied factual trove with relevance to all society. Cleve9

Jeez, it's like I'm the antichrist or something! :-) For the record, I've clearly identified myself and my potential COI in my talk page. I've been entirely transparent, to the point of using my name to tag my posts rather than safely hiding in anonymity. Moreover, before I make any edits to a feature, I first post my content suggestions or changes to the feature talk pages for anybody and everybody to review - Wikipedia doesn't require this, but I do it anyway to be completely above board. And I think it's clear from my past comments and contributions that my interest in posting to Wikipedia isn't to whitewash content, it's to enhance the accuracy/objectivity of Wikipedia features on the topics I have some expertise in. So I'll thank you very much restrain from further impugning my reputation or professionalism. Paul C. Lasewicz (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think Paul's personal involvement in the blocking of documents on IBM and the Holocaust was not disclosed--until now, even though his IBM status is indeed clear. Given the misinformation and distraction campaign the company has waged, I would prefer to leave the entry substantially as it is except for more detail on the book's fact findings, which neither Paul or IBM has ever commented on. Key

What campaign? IBM has issued two brief public statements on the matter. That's it - two. And the labeling those two brief statements as misinformation and distractional is a subjective, not objective, interpretation. On a more personal level, can you clarify for me what role I had in this alleged blocking of documents? I use the word alleged, because contrary to popular assumptions, I am not convinced that the term blocking applies at all. What are your sources for this claim? True, I was personally involved in IBM's donation of thousands of relevant documents to two major universities. This was a good faith effort to make all the relevant documents available in a timely fashion - and without restriction - for Mr. Black (and everybody else who so desires) to review. But I'm not sure how providing the whole world access to these materials constitutes blocking. Paul C. Lasewicz (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the statement... "True, I was personally involved in IBM's donation of thousands of relevant documents to two major universities. This was a good faith effort to make all the relevant documents available in a timely fashion - and without restriction - for Mr. Black (and everybody else who so desires) to review. But I'm not sure how providing the whole world access to these materials constitutes blocking." Just to follow-up. Several news reports have documented that the two universities in question are:

1) New York University where six boxes suddenly overnighted unrequested to a Dead Sea Scrolls scholar Lawrence Schiffmann--this to keep them out of Edwin Black's hands. The boxes sat in his closet for some time until Mr. Schiffmann made them available to Black. Among the many citations http://www.jewishjournal.com/articles/item/ibm_response_demanded_20010420/

http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/hardware/0,39042972,20089390,00.htm

2) Hohenheim University archive some miles from Stuttgart far from where most people could not access them. These were reportedly tied up for one or two years while being "cataloged."

3) Also of interest may be this article from an ex-IBM employee which has been published in various places. "IBM Should be Indicted in New York for Holocaust Genocide and its Nazi Nexus says ex-IBM employee from Poland" found various including

http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/74056.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.201.43 (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: No.1, that's not a news report, it's an opinion piece written by Mr. Black. Hardly NPOV. Re: No. 2, are or are not these materials available for the world to review? I still fail to see how making this content available for anyone to see can be a bad thing. Most people would applaud IBM's openness and proactivity in this regard. Paul C. Lasewicz (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to your statement "that's not a news report, it's an opinion piece written by Mr. Black. Hardly NPOV." I have heard a factual interview in which Mr. Black factually recounts that you barred him from the archive for many months in 1999 and ultimately have never allowed him in. This precipitated letters of complaint from Holocaust historians and editors. Neither you nor IBM has ever denied that you barred him for many months and then following those letters of complaint, you suddenly overnighted the boxes to the closet of a Dead Sea Scrolls scholar. He stated publicly that he was not aware they were coming. This, it appears, was not done to make them "more available" but to keep them away from scrutiny, an effort which ultimately failed because as Dead Sea Scroll scholar Lawrence Schiffmann stated publicly, he refused to keep them in his closet and away from Mr. Black. In an event before an audience, Mr. Black stated he and another historian were refused admission at IBM's German archive after traveling there, even though local IBM archivists agreed to admit him. They appear to have been overruled by the NY office of IBM. Sequestering those German documents in a distant German university archive--while not keeping a digital copy in the USA for examination--does not seem consistent with making them "accessible." In addition, Black has a written a factual--not opinion--article indicating that the Brazilian, Polish, Swedish and Swiss archives remain closed. Michael Zamczyk, a loyal IBM employee for decades, quit the company in frustration over the issue of IBM's involvement with the Nazis and said his own independent research made him publicly call for IBM's indictment on genocide charges. That article can be seen here http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/74056.html . In this context, one wonders if IBM should be applauded as you say or shown in the true historical and factual light of what it did--collaborate decisively with the Nazis and delay and obstruct efforts to bring this collusion to light. Vick —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.175.133 (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

All interviews are, by definition, subjective. Some of the key, most damning 'facts' you cite are, in fact, wrong. And I'm not spouting the corporate line when I say that. I'm being objective and truthful. I know, because I was there. But you are going to believe what you want to believe no matter what, so we might as well end this dialogue here and go our separate ways. Paul C. Lasewicz (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If I understand Paul Lasewicz, award-winning historian Edwin Black is not telling the truth, eminent Dead Sea Scrolls scholar Prof. Lawrence Schiffmann is not telling the truth, and long-time IBM employee Michael Zamczyk is not telling the truth. But you, the archivist of the company that has never denied collaborating with the Hitler regime in its genocidal programs, are telling the truth. So perhaps you can help us with just some YES or NO answers to the basic questions arising from the recent posts. 1) Was author Edwin Black blocked from the IBM archive in New York, the IBM Archive near Stuttgart, and is still refused access despite many requests? 2) Did your archive overnight six boxes of documents to NYU that ended up in the closet of Prof. Lawrence Schiffmann, an esteemed Dead Seas Scrolls expert? 3) Was IBM employee Michael Zamczyk honest and correct when he wrote comments published on History Network News: “Since the publication of the book IBM and the Holocaust, I as a long-time IBM employee and now an IBM retiree, have been trying to get IBM to face its past and apologize for its complicity in helping Germany commit genocide. The best offer I have received thus far was the willingness for Samuel J. Palmisano, the IBM CEO, to meet with me and apologize verbally in private for the company’s role in providing the technology for Germany to perfect the round up of European Jewry and their final annihilation. Included in these round ups were my father and most of my family in Poland.” 4) Are the IBM archives in Brazil, Poland, Switzerland and Sweden still closed to the public? 5) When the Gypsies sued IBM for genocide was the company’s defense “statute of limitations.” 6) Were there IBM customer sites, called the Hollerith Abteilung, in most concentration camps? 7) Are IBM lawyers reviewing your responses here on Wikipedia? Thank you. Monty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.214.166.2 (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

From the past posts, IBM archivist Paul Lasewicz has been quite active in responding to questions--usually within a day or so. I note it has been almost a month without a reply to the 7 questions of Monty and other inquiries about IBM's direct involvement in the Holocaust and his personal reported involvement in the obstruction of author Edwin Black's effort to obtain the files that proved that. Monty asked whether IBM lawyers were reviewing Wikipedia posts on this entry. I wonder if it would be useful to determine that question on other entries involving IBM that their archivist Paul Lasewicz has been involved in. This would help give insight into the editing of those entries. So I add that as an 8th relevant question to Monty's list and that of others. George10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.23.32.130 (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To George, Monty, and any other interested parties. Happy New Year! Please see me Dec. 9 post above - to reiterate, this is not a dialogue I am going to engage in any further. If you have any questions about my motivations, please visit my talk page, where I set out what my goals are. And please do review my other edits in Wikipedia. You will see that I am providing objective content that fills in gaps in the articles in question. You will also see that I do not remove content that others have already posted. And you will see that I make no edits at all without first starting a discussion on the article's talk page about my proposed changes, so that all may assess the objectivity of what I propose adding and weigh in on it. Paul C. Lasewicz (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

From my point of view, as I review the statements by IBM archivist Paul Lasewicz challenging settled fact about IBM in the Holocaust and reported information about his own personal involvement frustrating the author's effort to bring IBM's pivotal Nazi role to public scrutiny, and then in December 2009 being asked 7 simple Yes or No questions in that vein to help us evaluate the truthfulness or factuality of his assertions, he has declined repeatedly. Readers here might have benefited from those answers but apparently they are not forthcoming. I will weigh this record in evaluating future posts on this topic from this involved source. Viktor

It's pretty clear here that the anonymous editor pushing this so hard has no interest in considering any viewpoint other than his own. That Paul has taken the vitriolic personal attacks, strawman arguments, and "NUH UH YES WAY" logic speaks well of his character; I would have long ago stopped replying to editors who go to such lengths to assume bad faith. Of course, maybe it is a huge conspiracy within IBM to keep The Truth from seeing the light of day... it's more reasonable to conclude, based on the dialogue above, that Paul has tried very hard to be factual and reasonable and the anonymous editor(s) in question refuse to hear anything other than what they believe to be true. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Blaxthos. The exchange with the various editors--registered and non-registered-- was within bounds. What seems clear is Paul an IBM archivist, who confirms in his own words in an earlier post that he was personally involved in author Black's effort to get the IBM documents, challenged the factuality of the author Black, IBM employee Zamczyk, historian Schiffmann who received the documents and others. Paul was asked 7 clear-cut clarifying questions by an editor last December, and he declined to answer Yes or NO to help evaluate the information. Others have chimed in--and chimed in politely-- to inquire if those answers might be forthcoming. They were not. I also wish they had been answered, but they were not. So I think the matter is closed and speaks for itself. We can now all move on. In Like Flint

I agree with In Like Flint that all the editors positing questions to Paul of IBM seeking clarification of his statements and assertions were showing good faith and assuming good faith. We can all agree with In Like Flint the matter now speaks for itself and we should move on. George10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.174.236.120 (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Though Mr. Lasewicz is hardly an objective source for this article, I suspect that some of the anonymous editors here may have overstepped their bounds in promoting "IBM and the Holocaust" rather than maintaining an accurate, informative, and balanced wiki. Why isn't there any of the criticism of the book? I understand there was a critical NYT review of the book, but it seems curiously absent here. That review, along with more favorable reviews, deserves to be a part of this article, I think. --69.136.220.43 (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

IS "GYPSY" THE PREFERRED NOMENCLATURE?

This article makes several references to "gypsies," but this term is, I believe, outdated, and even offensive to some. The terms Roma and Sinti are generally preferable, I think, and are more precise than the rather broad "gypsy."--69.136.220.43 (talk) 06:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The name the group identified themselves with is Gypsy--see their name in GIRCA. We should not change their own name for their group as the anonymous editor 220.443 suggests. Sinta and Roma are the main Gypsies groups but there are also Turkish and Egyptian gypsies--hence the univeral term they use--Gypsy. As far as Mr. Lasewicz, I think a reasonable person would see that he had admitted he was involved in the author's attempt to reveal IBM's involvement. The heading of this section has a warning about IBM partisans. Lasewicz inferred that an IBM employee survivor of the.r Holocaust, the professor at NYU who received the documents, the author himself and others were not being factual. Reasonable and polite efforts to see clarification were met with non-response. IBM has never denied any of the facts in the book, and Mr. Lasewicz has never answered Yes or No to the several requests for information. The case is closed as another poster stated. As for reviews, inclduing the NYT, I have seen major public retraction on the IBM and the Holocaust book site under Hollerith denial. Many so-called negative reviews from Nature, Jerusalem Report and Audiofile Magazine have been publicly retracted and we would need to investigate whether any review in this case has amended, retracted and so forth. Plus, I have seen hundreds of positive reviews, so why cite the very review that IBM itself points to in efforts to discredit the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.248.184 (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of the retractions can be found at www.edwinblack.com under hollerithdenial. They are downloadable PDFs and profoundly illuminating to the unitiated. It is stated there that other retractions not listed are available on request.

I found the retractions at http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/hollerithdenial.php. These retractions by he reviewers themselves openly confess lies, errors, malice, and false statements about the IBM book. Anyone can decide for themselves but a prudent person would find these confesssions and retractions to be stunning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.52.248.130 (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Title of this article

Wikipedia policy is unambiguous on this. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) states: ""In general, use the title of the work as the article's title...When using the title as written by the author, and nothing else, possible implications of POV are the author's and not Wikipedia's. Trying to "purge" Wikipedia page names of an external author's intentions, would be creation of a new POV; Wikipedia's Neutral point of view (NPOV) policy includes not to tamper with what authors of notable works want to express with the title they give to their work (see also Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Article names). If there are opposing views about the book title, these are better explained in the article text and not crammed in the Wikipedia page name.

"Hence "(book)" or a similar qualifier is not used in article names, unless where needed for disambiguation from other Wikipedia pages. Examples:

• Stupid White Men, not Stupid White Men (book)
• Darwin's Dangerous Idea, not Darwin's Dangerous Idea (book)
• The Divine Comedy, not The Divine Comedy (poem)"

So this article should be moved back to its original title; failure to do so would be against clear policies. RolandR (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Strong object -- an unqualified title will give them impression that this article is literally about IBM during the Holocaust, which is clearly not the case here. Given the ease of confusion as to the actual content of the article coupled with the fact that the book is highly subjective and the accuracy of which is disputed, I see no advantage of dropping the (book) qualifier, and plenty of reasons why doing so would be a Bad Thing. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I cited the policy immediately above; this states "possible implications of POV are the author's and not Wikipedia's. Trying to "purge" Wikipedia page names of an external author's intentions, would be creation of a new POV...Hence "(book)" or a similar qualifier is not used in article names, unless where needed for disambiguation from other Wikipedia pages". Since this is not the case here, your subjective objections are irrelevant, and against policy. The current title "creates a new POV", and cannot stand. RolandR (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Firstly Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) is a guideline and nothing more. Secondly the article wasn't about IBM and the Holocaust, it was about a book with the same title. Thirdly who are you to say that there couldn't be a genuinely neutral POV article created about the subject and not the book. Fourthly it makes no difference to anyone looking for the book as the search will show the book page if someone enters "IBM and the Holocaust" into the search box. And just for good measure why don't we just point out that I am absolutely neutral in this matter having never edited (or been interested in) Jewish political articles or even anti-Jewish article. The same cannot be said for your good self (I don't state that as an accusation, merely as a fact that your user page can testify to). As it happens I don't give a flying fuck about politics full stop. What I do give a flying fuck about though is not pulling the wool over people's eyes. Without the qualifier readers will be expecting to see a standard Wikipedia article about IBM and the Holocaust. They wouldn't be getting that though. Now they get exactly what they expect... an article about a book. It's all about clarity. Quite a simple proposition really. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

RolandR is right, the guideline is explicitly about this exact situation. And I think you are underestimating the average reader if you think they would confuse this article as an article about the subject and not a book on the subject. Factomancer (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

A guideline is just that, it is not policy and it is not compulsory and it will not be appropriate in all cases, which is why WP:IAR exists, and yes I know, it's another guideline. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've requested outside input to this using the RFC tag. Stifle (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support (A dumb layman's perspective:) Whatever the issues here are they aren't being solved by a needless qualifier in brackets. Readers are left in no doubt what they're reading about as soon as they arrive at the article, if anyone feels it can be said clearer then they can edit it in. Because there are issues surrounding this subject, treating something as basic as the article's name differently to the next book's article is a cast-iron way of pissing at least somebody off. I'm sure you can all hammer out something here without getting snagged on non-issues like this. Someoneanother 23:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
• SupportThe WP policy is clear. Once we start to worry about the possible misinterpretation of a book titles we open a whole new can of worms. If, for example, someone writes a book entitled 'Martin Hogbin is a pig', that should be the title of the WP article. On reading the article, readers will immediately see (I hope) that it is not an article about me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
• Manual of style is a content guideline, WP:NPOV is a policy. Where a particular title risks portraying a POV as fact then standard disambiguation practice is perfectly acceptable. The Divine Comedy is unlikely to be interpreted as a factual article about God joking, whereas IBM and the Holocaust may well give rise to the false impression that this is about IBM's involvement in the Holocaust, rather than one person's somewhat individual view of that. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that approach is that we will then need to consider every book title individually to decide whether it is open to misinterpretation, who might misinterpret it and why, and what harm that misinterpretation might do. This will lead to endless arguments about many books because some faction considers that its title might be interpreted as insulting or damaging to them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I just don't see how a (book) designator is a concern in the circumstance where a book's title could be confused with a literal encyclopedic topic. I assert that our obligation to the WP:NPOV policy outweighs the relatively minor burden of evaluating the necessity for a (book) moniker when needed; I also fail to understand how there could possibly be any rational objection to adding (book) to ensure accuracy and preempt confusion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 13:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If we see the need for a 'book' designator then it would be best to do this for all books, which might not be a bad idea. The problem with doing it for some books only is that it would introduce a whole new type of argument to WP, as to whether need a 'book' designator or not?'. Some, you may feel, obviously need one, some obviously not, but a line would have to be drawn somewhere and exactly where to draw it could be a source of endless discussion on many book articles. We would thus multiply this current argument by the number of books on WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the (book) designator is necessary when a book's title could be confused for an encyclopedic or historic topic -- seems pretty reasonable and easy to distinguish, and I can't think of a logical reason why such a designator would be a detriment. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

And you fondly imagine that all editors will agree which book titles need the tag? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You can't legislate Clue, nor should you try. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You're advocating ignoring WP:NPOV policy concerns because people might not always agree?  ;-) I do, however, understand your point -- there is no utopian solution in which everyone will always agree (our capacity for argument is astounding!), so I don't think a concern over potential disagreements should be a factor when considering a solution. Can your provide an example where the criteria might not be clear? What potential harm does adding (book) cause? //Blaxthos ( t / c )

Say there is a book called 'Why men don't listen' and the editors of that article decide to give it a book tag. There is also a book called 'Why women can't read maps' and the editors of that article decide a tag is not required. Neither on its own is a bad decision but when a new editor stumbles across both articles and asks why one has a book tag and the other does not war breaks out. This is a fairy trivial example but there are many books written on much more contentions subjects such as, religion and politics where endless arguments could break out because one book has a tag and another does not. Even the titles of well-known books can be subject to misinterpretation. Would we need a tag for Scouting for boys for example? Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, okay the Scouting for boys is hilarious.  :) I grant your point with regards to "legislating clue" writ large, though I still think this is a case where we're best advised to WP:IAR. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not one who is against WP:IAR but in this case I think it is important to have consistency to avoid arguments. As I said, one solution might be to propose changing the rules to have a book tag for all books although this would involve a lot of work. On the other hand I see the point in this case and do not have very strong feelings on the subject. I have given my view and will leave it at that. Let us see what others say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the page back to the correct location; an article talkpage is not the place to overturn well-established naming conventions. Qualifiers like "(book)" or "(journalist)" or whatever are added only when the subject's title is unavailable. If anyone wants to try to overturn this convention, WP:NAME is that way. Rd232 ^talk 11:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am totally uninvolved in the problem, but I believe giving the title in italics may be a good compromise which has also been used with success for other debated book titles such as 1421: The Year China Discovered the World. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

OTRS complaints

Hi folks,

The above and other comments have led to complaints to OTRS under Ticket:2010040110042855. Contributors are requested to refrain from using offensive language or casting aspersions about anything other than the topic at hand. Please contact me if you have any queries about this. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a certain person has OTRS on speed dial. And I'll use whatever language I feel like using at any given time. A self-important author won't change that. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 13:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Fred, I understand your position but I recommend not stirring the pot unnecessarily. Stifle, can you help me identify the "offensive language" that is improper? Noting that the book's factual accuracy is disputed is exactly on-topic and proper for this sort of discussion. The only discussions in the archive are all seemingly from the sockpuppets that were blocked shortly before Mr. Black appeared on the scene, and I don't see any improper comments at all. Was this just a generic OTRS notice, or are there specific examples of what we shouldn't do/repeat? Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The offensive language is contained in Fred's post of 22:09 on the 5th of April. The important thing to do here is to make clear whether one is referring to the Wikipedia article or the book. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion, how about using some plain language, or even a quote so that we actually know what the fuck Black is whining about. Instead of this ridiculous double talk. This is Wikipedia not spy school. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Fred, that's really way out of line -- Stifle is just trying to help, and has done an excellent job of trying to deal with a difficult situation. No need to be uncivil or aggressive with him; in my past experiences (as in this one) I've known Stifle to be a patient, reasonable, and responsible admin. Please stop the vitriolic language and incivility; he's only trying to help (and is doing so!). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 09:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

My ire isn't aimed at Stifle. I'm well aware that he's in the middle of a shit storm. I'm also aware that Black is trying a runaround his block by emailing OTRS and getting poor sods like Stifle to (unwillingly?) act as his go between. I will not be told what I can and can't say by Black via an intermediary. I'm also pissed off by not being told straight what the problem is, if indeed there is a legitimate problem. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Black has asked me to post the following:

This is Edwin Black. I am not yet prepared to request my account be unblocked, save for a short window to make this brief message which follows: "Numerous individuals in numerous countries have been and are addressing this matter continuously. Stifle has played an excellent and useful role for the Wikipedia community. More will be hopefully be announced soon. Thank you."

I am working through his concerns and ask nothing more than that people make clear, where relevant, whether they are referring to the article or to the book, and consider moderating their language. That is all. They are requests, not instructions on what you can or can't say, and there are no other problems (at present). Stifle (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you aren't telling us which comments. As we don't know which comments are under scrutiny, we can't say whether they are about the book or the article. This is what I mean about the double talk. Everything is as clear as mud. Additionally as a blocked editor Black has no say whatsoever in what we can or can't say (depending of course on its legality), he most certainly cannot dictate how we say anything or what words are used.

Now as far as I can figure it no-one has said anything about the book, and all comments above refer to the article and to the article's title. It's rather obvious that we have no say in the book's title. That should be abundantly clear even to an award-winning author of Mr Black's calibre. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Can someone clarify who, what, or where has allegedly disputed the accuracy of the book? Stifle (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No-one has, at least not recently. All the recent discussion here has been about the title relative to WP article naming conventions. The contents of the book haven't come up at all. Maybe it was on another article's talk page. Possibly on the IBM history article? That's just a guess, I haven't looked. How about on the original article's talk page, the one sans the (book) qualifier? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean on Wikipedia, or elsewhere? Specifically:

And yet one wonders if Mr. Black has properly calculated the degree of the company's culpability. Indeed, many questions suggest themselves in "I.B.M. and the Holocaust." Is Mr. Black really correct in his assumption that without I.B.M.'s technology, which consisted mainly of punch cards and the machines to tabulate them, the Germans wouldn't have figured out a way to do what they did anyway? Would the country that devised the Messerschmitt and the V-2 missile have been unable to devise the necessary means to slaughter millions of victims without I.B.M. at its disposal? ... Mr. Black's contention is that I.B.M. is morally responsible for that difference. But that difference has been well noted by historians who have considered various factors to account for it — national character, the division of France into two zones, the very topography of the countries in question. Mr. Black, in his fervor to find I.B.M. culpable, weighs only punch cards in this particular balance. Of course, he is right that it would have been better had I.B.M. not sold them to Hitler. It would have been better had many things been done differently by many people. Mr. Black's case is long and heavily documented, and yet he does not demonstrate that I.B.M. bears some unique or decisive responsibility for the evil that was done.

— The New York Times

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Anywhere would do. That's fine, Blaxthos. Stifle (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe Edwin Black's syndicated article regarding Wikipedia and these recent exchanges will be of interest. Five versions are shown. I am posting this message to the 4 pages which I believe have an interest in the articles.

• http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=12106&pageid=37&pagename=Page+One
• http://www.hnn.us/articles/125437.html
• http://www.speroforum.com/a/30719/Wikipedia-The-Prime-Culprit-in-the-Dumbingdown-of-Culture
• http://www.dailyestimate.com/article. sp?idarticle=30719
• http://www.energypublisher.com/article.asp?idCategory=35&idsub=159&id=30719&t=Wikipedia%3A+The+Prime+Culprit+in+the+Dumbing-down+of+Culture
• http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2010/04/12/472903.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxstudio (talk • contribs)

I would ask no one to add text in my name or colour my words as was just done and please remove them or sign them yourself. Saxstudio (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has added any text in your name, nor coloured your words, nor anything else other than reformat it. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• I just blocked Fred for 24 hours due to continued unacceptable personal; commentary. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Question: I'm not really clear why Stifle on 3 April removed a lot of content, citing OTRS. Yes it's mostly unreferenced, but it seems like fair book synopsis, so short of sprinkling it with page numbers, it doesn't need all that much referencing, does it? Rd232 ^talk 11:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Because it was uncited. Per WP:V, uncited material may be challenged and removed without notice by any editor. Feel free to restore anything that you can cite. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
  • It's under the heading "Synopsis". This means it is a summary of the book. How is that uncited? Does every synopsis now need page numbers after every sentence (or time codes if it's a film)? Rd232 ^talk 14:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree (see post below). This seems to be a misunderstanding/misconception of the function of a synopsis/plot section. Such a thing can written based on the primary source (the book) only or based on content descriptions found in other sources (as part of reviews for instances). There is no real requirement for citing book pages or similar for such a synopsis.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Rd323 I am happy to provide you with a copy of the book or you can get one from Stifle and create your own synopsis with page numbers or chapter refs. I suppose no one can create a synopsis without reading the book, hence the offer to you or any Wikipedia user. Edwin Black —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.128.247 (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I do have a copy somewhere... I'm not sure where, but in any case I don't really have the time. Rd232 ^talk 11:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if I did anything to cause an honest contribution to be deleted. The article I was referencing specifically cited actions by users on this article. Hope this mention is not deleted as well. I did clean up my prior typo if that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxstudio (talk • contribs) 21:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Synopsis

The book states that IBM tried to block, hinder, and confuse investigation on the company's role in Germany in WWII. When IBM realized the project already had extensive data to make its case, it attempted to whitewash its role issuing several public denials of its involvement.

I removed the above, since it is not a synopsis of the book, merely a line from the cited review quoted verbatim. Rich Farmbrough, 00:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC).

I agree Rich. That section was hardly a "synopsis." To do one may require a copy of the book as you may wish page numbers etc. I am happy to provide it you will contact me at inquiry@edwinblack.com and indicate where to email or mail the book. Plus I will add a zip of period documentation. I will leave it to you and others to create the synopsis but I am here for any questions. Again I thank the many Wikipedians who have graciously gotten in touch with an eye toward addressing this article, and your kind remarks. Thanks all. Edwin Black. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.128.247 (talk) 00:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to quibble about this one removed line, but completely removing the synopsis it not really a good approach either. For this entry (despite the apparent issues between various involved editors) holds the same as for any other WP articles about books/literature/movies and similar. Articles and article sections grow and and can start rather small, i.e. they may very well consist only of a very few lines first. And the appropriate procedure to improve them, is usually to extend them, but not to simply delete the current scant information, because it is not a good/complete synopsis yet. Another thing is, that you cannot remove parts of the synopsis due to being "overly critical/biased" towards IBM, the synopsis is a summary of the books content. If book's content is biased against IBM, so has to be the synopsis. A synopsis is not a review of the book or an NPOV description of the topic covered in the book.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The implication I am getting from this exchange is that a Synopsis of the book and an article about the book will be produced by individuals who have never read the book. Would it not be better for someone to read or skim the book before a Synopsis is written. I have sent the book to numerous editors here and I am happy to provide it to others if requested. That said, I assure you, I personally prefer there be no synopsis or mention in Wikipedia, even a favorable one. Just a note to the German speaking Kmhkmh, if you wish to see original lochkarten and NS-era KZ documents in German, just ask. Edwin Black

Usually/ideally an editor should have read the book, when he is writing a synopsis/content description of it. However a provisional/temporary synopsis could be written by simply summmarizing content descriptions from other media. This is clearly not the best approach, but if properly done this still allows to provide some useful information to readers, which is better than nothing. This is part of the way WP works, things can start small and grow/improve over time and there is no requirement (for good reasons) that articles or article sections need to be good/complete/detailed from the start. Also what ultimately matters is only the content of the article and nothing else. A 5 sentence synopsis by somebody, who has read the book is not necessarily better than a 5 sentence version of somebody who has read read a few thorough reviews of the book. What matters is that those 5 sentences are accurate. Note that synopsis here is really just a (brief) summary of the content/plot, i.e. there isn't really such a thing as a favourable or unfavourable synopsis. The potentially favourable or less favourable part appears (if at all) in the description beyond the synopsis, i.e. in analysis/summry of reviews/reception history sections.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello Kmhkmh. I did not mean I want a favorable synopsis, although I am certain IBM advocates will water down the true element of the book by using using such terms such as "speculate" and delete the word "Holocaust" and claim it just about "the Third Reich" which it is not. If it were just about the Third Reich, it would be labor, construction, health, military. home front, etc. My book is exclusively about IBM's role in "the Holocaust" including non-German uses in Vichy France, Romania and Italy (obviously allies). It is about IBM in Poland, Holland and Hungary. It is about money and corporate deception. It would take one minute to survey the Table of Contents and make a bland synopsis. It will take 50 times longer without examining the horse's teeth and you will still argue endless. Just get a copy of the book--send me an email and I will email it in 5 minutes. Or if you need a synopsis starter text, try starting this one:

       "The book chronicles IBM's conscious involvement in the Holocaust beginning in 1933 as Hitler came to power and continuing well   into World War II. IBM and the Holocaust extensively quotes IBM company correspondence, Nazi records, and other contemporaneous documents to show IBM New York directly and through its overseas subsidiaries helped create enabling technologies, step-by-step, from the identification and cataloging programs of the 1930s to the selections of the 1940s, to make the Holocaust more efficient as the Third Reich embarked upon its plan of conquest and genocide. The book focuses on IBM's involvement in all six phases of the Holocaust: 1) identification, 2) exclusion; 3) confiscation; 4) ghettoization; 5) deportation; 6) extermination."

Now Kmhkmh, words like that above have been used by many university professors in their course adoption, attorney continuing education programs, institute studies, publishers and so forth for almost a decade. There is no need to be avoid the actual accepted synopsis of the book. Again I prefer nothing appear. I prefer the book article be deleted altogether because as soon as the article is made right, anyone can come along and quietly change it as was done a few weeks ago. This is not how I wish Holocaust history to be recorded. I do not wish to sell any copies to any Wikipedians or those reading Wikipedia. I offered any reader a free copy. The greatest service to world knowledge would be not to write about the book inaccurately or with misdirection. But if you feel you want to accurately describe the book and you feel you must, I can assist you in making such a description more factual. But I repeat--form your own conclusion not by reading my post here or reviews pro or con but look at the Table of Contents, look at the book. T ake one minute actually look at the material. That seems elemental. Danke. Edwin Black

Well this is not up to you, but to the WP editors, who may want to write about the book. Similar as it is not up to you what media outlet XY may or may not write about your book. The only reason to delete the article or the synopsis would be a lack of notability, but due the awards and media coverage the book seem to meet the notability criteria. What you can and should insist on however is, that the article is accurate, ie. that it does not grossly misrepresent the book or contains clearly false claims about the book. You can also suggest a synopsis yourself (as above). But regarding issues of mere wording or a particular formulations, you will have to live with whatever the editorial consent turns out to be.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Kmhkmh. I assure you my only purpose here is to ensure exactly what you stated above: "What you can and should insist on however is, that the article is accurate, ie. that it does not grossly misrepresent the book or contains clearly false claims about the book." My track record in that regard is second to none. Kindly see http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/hollerithdenial.php. Also, you wrote these words: "Similar as it is not up to you what media outlet XY may or may not write about your book." To expand, if outlet XY writes something inappropriate or false, we can contact them by name and they will make the retraction, correction or clarification. It is a 1x process that depends upon good faith exchange between known individuals using the telephone and direct communication. There is strict accountability by name and institution or organization. This works every time. With WP, no one knows who is involved, a drop-out from Kentucky or a world-class historian in Berlin. False names are used by many... but certainly not all, including those Wikipedians who have been gracious enough to communicate with me. Moreover, once the article is made correct, it can become again falsified, watered down, or misdirected at a moment's notice. That in mind, why not include a truthful and hard wired notice next to Synopsis: "(No one consulted the book itself before producing this Synopsis)" Then, assuming no direct or indirect false statements are made, you can be be profoundly incomplete and vague and all will be properly notified to form their own conclusion. Again, I am willing to support factual efforts and take immediate steps on false statements or inaccurate assertions, but I do not expect this entry to aspire to completeness. I hope this comment is helpful in the vein of improving the article. Edwin Black PS Just in the few moments it took me to respond to you, someone overruled others and changed the article back to a title with had the word (book) in it claiming: "This article is not about IBM and the Holocaust -- it is about a book by that title, which happens to be about IBM and the Holocaust. This move is necessary because..." Case made.

Good Progress

Good progress is being made by users on this article. I have had a few emails from some very nice Wikipedians and one phone conversation. From those, it was thought that the following piece of information would be useful moving forward. Reviews in scholarly journals are not peer reviewed or fact-checked. It is well-known anomaly in academic publishing. Often a journal will actually publish two opposing reviews of the same book reading like day and night. Because such reviews are not peer reviewed or fact checked, they often result in major controversies such as on my book which led to numerous retractions and forfeiture of review fees. You can see them here http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/hollerithdenial.php. The most legendary case of such non peer-reviewed letters, reviews, and exchanges in academia is thought by many to be the David Abraham Affair of which Henry Ashby Turner and others were involved--many years ago but still echoing. Nothing to do with me, thank G-d. The back and forth is monumental so I do not recommend delving into the hundreds of pages of charges, rebuttals and so forth. There is a small mention of it on WP. In any event, this might be helpful. As usual, I welcome the inquiries and questions of Wikipedians at inquiry@edwinblack.com. Thank you again. Edwin Black —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.128.247 (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

IBM during World War II

In light of this discussion, I'm gathering that IBM during World War II is a WP:Notable subset of History of IBM, so I've created that article. (see related talk thread at History of IBM.)

At that point, it only makes sense that IBM and the Holocaust should redirect there, which means that this article must be disambiguated to IBM and the Holocaust (book). Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 16:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Although I am not sure what Andrew has done, or where I have posted this comment--the pages are flying fast and furious, I have posted this message on the page that I think is new: "

Andrew--upon a fuller reading of your change--not a bad idea at all. I personally do not care if the word (book) is added to the article title regarding my work, so long as that term is not used to deny it is actually about IBM during the Holocaust. If I can help you Andrew in compiling information, books, dox, etc, send me a ping at inquiry@edwinblack.comn. I just located your private email and sent you a similar invitation, if that email I used was in fact yours. Thank you. Edwin Black

I've undone this undiscussed move which is based on an entirely non-standard approach. If you wish to propose this, do so. Get consensus before moving the page. Rd232 ^talk 16:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I must now bow out. This article title and location has been changed by Andrew and changed back by Rd232 within the span of a few moments. If anyone needs a real question answered, contact me. I can check later after a few coffees to see how it all worked out. Until then, my next book beckons. Best wishes to all. Edwin Black

Sorry about the confusion. EB, I'll reply to your email right now.

Rd232, my apologies: I made the move before I saw that the opposite concensus had already been reached on this page. I'm willing to slow down a bit.

Here's my main argument: as I said at Talk:History of IBM, IBM during World War II is deserving of a page, and I also think it will serve as a good forum in which both sides of the argument can state their views, so that we don't have biased sentences like "As with hundreds of foreign-owned companies that did business in Germany at that time, Dehomag came under the control of Nazi authorities prior to and during World War II," which in any event came right out of an IBM press release.

At that point, it becomes sensible for IBM and the Holocaust to redirect there, and for IBM and the Holocaust (book) to be the proper name of this article. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 17:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Well if such a page exists, on that specific topic (IBM/holocaust), then a dablink might be reasonable; though at first glance I'm not sure that IBM and the Holocaust would need to redirect to IBM during World War II - a hatnote could easily suffice if the primary meaning of the phrase is the book title. And a dab page with two items, one of which is a redirect, is unusual to say the least. Rd232 ^talk 17:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, hum, that's persuasive. So I haven't really provided new grounds for renaming this article, after all.

How about we keep this article's title unchanged, and add the hatnote, {{for|a discussion of IBM's involvement in the Holocaust|IBM during World War II}}. In a pinch, that article could be renamed to, "Role in the Holocaust of IBM's German subsidiary". Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 17:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to experiment with it, just to see how it looks. Go ahead and revert if it isn't to your liking. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 17:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Fences and Windows took care of it. OK, I'm pretty happy with the way things are now. (If we were to re-open the article name debate, I'd still take the side of adding (book) to the end. But that's not what we're doing, so I'm done here.) Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 17:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Confused by all the many pages and moves, but I have just left a message at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IBM_during_World_War_II along Andrew's lines. Edwin Black

NYT not IBM

A quote from an NYT book review was misattributed to IBM. I have fixed it as follows:

Richard Bernstein, writing for The New York Times Book Review, states that Black's case "is long and heavily documented, and yet he does not demonstrate that I.B.M. [sic] bears some unique or decisive responsibility for the evil that was done. citation = 'I.B.M. and the Holocaust': Assessing the Culpability

I have also mentioned it at IBM_during_World_War_II#Responses_to_critics

160.39.222.133 (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Bernstein wrote it in NYT and IBM adopted it as their official response. Edwin Black Washington DC (talk) 18:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That may be so, but it matters who said it first. I know it makes your book look bad, but the information should not be removed from the page. 160.39.222.133 (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I would add, that this does not look like IBM "adopting it as their official response": [1]

Matters not to me. Run it. No one believes it. It does not say the information is false--just that IBM was not the sole bad guy. NYT was refused an advanced copy of the book. They did not like that. Bernstein was their pop culture guy--not exactly a historian. So they were the last to review the book. You are welcome to run balance reviews if you like. I don't really mind. Find them at www.ibmandtheholocaust.com. But now I must withdraw from this exchange. Furthers offline pls inquiry@edwinblack.com. I can get you a book, documentation, whatever. Thanks. Edwin Black Washington DC (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Extensive revision forthcoming

This article, in my opinion, is missing.......... the article. It's a piece on a book without really providing a synopsis and discussion of the work itself, only the critical reaction to the publication (often negative). There needs to be some exposition and analysis of the work itself to put the criticism into context. I'm not a huge fan of WP pages dedicated to specific books, but since this puppy actually exists now and prospects for deletion or merger would seem slight, it might as well be done right, y'know. If anyone wants to have a go at writing the article to go with this article, have at it. Otherwise, I'll clear a date on my dance card in the near future and have a hack at it myself. Carrite (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It used to be a lot fuller article, but became a target for POV pushing during April: [2]. I added back a little synopsis but I don't know the book so can't really describe it in detail. It might be in your interests to familiarise yourself with the edit history. The syn opsis could certainly do with more detail. Betty Logan (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I have brought this up before, but 1) I believe that the method of production of this book might be noteworthy. Black paid many researchers at once to canvass document repositories around the world. The result was a book that came together relatively quickly. I do not know if this was novel at the time (or even at the present time). 2) A key feature of the book is interspersing contemporary newspaper headlines with company memos. That is, an employee working on the Romanian census might read in the local paper that the Third Reich was embarking on a census of the Romanian population. If these were in previous versions of the article, perhaps they could be added back as they are related to the production of and style of the book. Fotoguzzi (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Reopening the naming debate

This being an article about a specific book, not about the topic of the book, I would like to rename this article "IBM and the Holocaust (book)." Any objections? Carrite (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The article titling guidelines state that you only add (book), (film), (TV show) etc for disambiguation purposes, otherwise you just use the title of the book as it stands. Betty Logan (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

My point being that this title is very ambiguous and needing disambiguation, sounding like a topic rather than a title. Carrite (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going by WP:NCB. Ambiguity on here tends to be defined as two works sharing the same title rather than semantic ambiguity. If you want to try your luck I won't change it back, but it has been moved before and moved back: [3]. Betty Logan (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote last time we discussed this, Wikipedia policy is unambiguous. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) states:

"In general, use the title of the work as the article's title...When using the title as written by the author, and nothing else, possible implications of POV are the author's and not Wikipedia's. Trying to "purge" Wikipedia page names of an external author's intentions, would be creation of a new POV; Wikipedia's Neutral point of view (NPOV) policy includes not to tamper with what authors of notable works want to express with the title they give to their work (see also Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Article names). If there are opposing views about the book title, these are better explained in the article text and not crammed in the Wikipedia page name.

"Hence "(book)" or a similar qualifier is not used in article names, unless where needed for disambiguation from other Wikipedia pages. Examples:

• Stupid White Men, not Stupid White Men (book)
• Darwin's Dangerous Idea, not Darwin's Dangerous Idea (book)
• The Divine Comedy, not The Divine Comedy (poem)"

There is no need here for "disambiguation from other Wikipedia pages", and adding the qualifier yiu suggest would be "creation of a new POV". This is still unnecessary and unacceptable. RolandR (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

How many of those titles you listed could be possibly confused as a valid encyclopedic article? I proffer that none of them could -- the distinction here is that for someone completely unfamiliar with the subject will by default assume that the article is about what the title implies (in this case, a prima facie subject would be "IBM during the Holocaust"). The guidelines to which you refer aren't intended to cover every case, and I'm highly inclined to ignore it in this case -- policies and guidelines are not hard-and-fast rules or suicide pacts; ignoring common sense solutions in favor of blindly following guidelines to the letter does not a better encyclopedia make. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think somebody who actually types in "IBM and the Holocaust" will more often than not be searching for the book, and would most likely type the title than "IBM and the Holocaust (book)". If you were searching for information about IBM and the Holocaust as the subject you would most likely do a keyword search on "IBM holocaust" in the search box. Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Blaxthos and Carrite, to the extent that I would propose amending or ignoring our naming guidelines in cases when the words in titles refer to an object whose existence or special qualities are the POV of the person who devised the title. This seems to be the distinct difference between titles such as "The Decameron" and titles such as "George W. Bush's Sodomy Victims". To those who argue that the task of distinguishing these two categories should be forbidden as an act of POV, I would point out that this argument would bar us from making NPOV determinations in the first place. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 17:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• PS In the meantime, the guideline should be amended to remove the italics from the book names (Darwin's Dangerous Idea, The Divine Comedy), insofar as we are referring to article titles, which do not support italics. Of course, once the italics are removed, the need for the (book) suffix becomes more apparent. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 17:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

For reasons of clarification, it should be added either the suffix (book) or the title be given in italics, if only for the reason that this discussion will otherwise pop up again and again ("IBM and the Holocaust" is a suggestive title). People who oppose both for rather formalistic reasons should be aware of that, a little pragmatism saves time and energy for all of us. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma, I don't think your proposals (use of italics) address the problem. This discussion is about the naming of articles, not the style guidelines for referring to these articles in the body of other articles; and article names don't support italics. (This is what I was trying to emphasize in my immediately prior post, perhaps unclearly.) Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 22:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

These proposals could open a can of worms. It would give carte blanche to every POV editor who disagrees with the subject or title of a book to insist that we clarify that Wikipedia does not subscribe to the thesis. We have already had the same debate at The Invention of the Jewish People, and I can foresee countless other titles which could give rise to such an argument. If we change the guidelines and policy, it won't be long before we face demands to change the titles of, for instance, God Is Not Great, The Eternal Jew, Sisterhood Is Powerful, Liberal Fascism and many other articles about books with opinionated titles. Please don't go down that road. RolandR (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This can't be the first time this discussion has been had on Wikipedia. Are there any provisions in the titling guidelines that allow for disambiguation of this kind? Are there any other precedents where article titles have been "disambiguated" solely to prevent confusion with the subject matter? If this has been done on other articles then I'd be interested in seeing the reasons. Betty Logan (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, not again. There is nothing new here, no reason at all to ignore guidelines that exist for good reason. If anybody wants to go and amend the guidelines, go away and do that. This non-issue is simply not going to be decided on a single exception, and nor should it be. Until then, IBM and the Holocaust is a valid title, because there is a book by that name. Claims of causing "confusion" between the title and an encyclopedia topic independent of the book are utterly mysterious and seem to rest on consumers of Wikipedia not actually reading its entries after searching for something, which is an odd point of view to say the least (any wikilinks to it should make the nature of the target perfectly clear). Rd232 ^talk 03:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Serious objections. There's no reason to ignore a perfectly good guideline. Non-fiction books are often titled after their topic (i.e. "The Roman Empire", "The Mongols and the West") and we don't treat them differently anywhere else, unless we already have an article on the topic. Since that isn't the case here and a brief read of the first sentence clearly identifies the topic of the article, I see no reason readers would be confused. Shell ^babelfish 14:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious that there's deep division on the question of adding "(book)" as a clarifier — and it is also pretty clear-cut that unless there is a parallel article called The Holocaust and IBM or some such which would require such a modifier for the book here, no modifier is to be used according to the basic guidelines... Whereas I would argue this is an excellent place to Ignore All Rules, I'm not that worked up over the matter either. Given the previous history of attempts and reverts, clearly No consensus means no modifier. Moving on... Carrite (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Footnote form

I strongly prefer having the main text unemcumbered by extremely long footnotes in the body of the text. The version of footnoting is optional per the editor. See: WP:REFNAME. Carrite (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Academic referencing incorporates page numbers into the text and only has one entry in the references for each book. It looks ridiculous at the moment with the same book listed over thirty times in the references - books and articles don't list the same source thirty times over. I'd appreciate it if other editors compare the current version to the version using page referencing [4], and then we will just adopt the version which has the most support. Betty Logan (talk) 05:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

factories twice?

Another German census was conducted on May 17, 1939, when 750,000 census takers conducted interviews with the country's 22 million households, 5.5 million factories, and 3.5 million factories.[23]

factories twice? Bo Jacoby (talk) 06:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC).