Talk:Treblinka extermination camp/Archive 3
Now that the FAC has been archived...
editI meant to finish my read-through of the article on Friday, but that didn't happen. Traveling home from college after the semester ended got in the way, I'm afraid. I think the FAC would have been archived anyway, seeing as Squemish Ossifrage and John have not revisited their objections, Casliber did not review as promised, I didn't review when I said I would, and Hamiltonstone laid out a bunch of concerns about the prose which have yet to be addressed.
- Anyway, I will now do a thorough read-through of the article, tweaking the prose as I go along, addressing as many of Hamiltonstone's comments as I can, and listing any new concerns I have below.
Once I'm done with this process, then I believe the article can be sent to peer review or Military history A-class review.I intend to do most if not all of this work tonight. AmericanLemming (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)- Considering the extent of my copy edit and review, I think you can probably just go and renominate it right away on December 29/30 after my 40-something comments have been addressed, along with the few remaining from Hamiltonstone. AmericanLemming (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hamiltonstone's comments
editResolved comments from Hamiltonstone
|
|---|
|
AmericanLemming's comments
editComments for me to address
editResolved comments for AmericanLemming
|
|---|
|
Comments for PoeticBent to address
editResolved comments for PoeticBent
|
|---|
|
Background
Treblinka I
Treblinka II
I'm going to stop here tonight, roughly one-third of the way through the article, because this is going to take a bit more time than I thought it would. I'm basically reviewing and copy-editing the article for the third time. I hope you don't mind too much. :) AmericanLemming (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Killing process
Gas chambers
Organisation of the camp
Treblinka prisoner uprising
Operational command
Death count
After the war
Treblinka trials
Individuals responsible
Notes
|
Well, Poeticbent, I am pleased to announce that, 150+ edits of mine and 60 addressed comments later, my third copy-edit and peer review of Treblinka extermination is finished! AmericanLemming (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Renominating Treblinka extermination camp: December 29 or 30?
edit- Note that this discussion has been copied from the original at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates
I've just finished doing an extensive copy edit/peer review for Treblinka extermination camp, a FAC that was recently archived. Ian Rose, the relevant FAC coordinator, left the closing note at 22:00 on 15 December, but the bot didn't archive the nomination until the following day at 10:01. Poeticbent and I will be renominating the article (or at least he will, I believe) by the end of the year or shortly thereafter.
My question is this: for the two week waiting period for the article, do we start from 15 December or 16 December? That is, is the earliest it can be renominated 29 or 30 December? AmericanLemming (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Because we've had issues with the latest bot I've tended to treat the date/time the article was archived by a delegate as the closing date (perhaps that's always been the case, even before my time) so 29th is okay; a day isn't a big deal anyway. However per my closing comment, I'd still recommend (as a fellow editor as well as a FAC coordinator) that you at least get those reviewers with outstanding concerns to look it over prior to another FAC nom, either informally or as part of a Peer or MilHist A-Class Review. This is not a requirement of course, but I expect it'd make for a smoother second run at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Before renominating at FAC...
editTo whom it may concern, namely @Squeamish Ossifrage, John, Hamiltonstone, Casliber, and Poeticbent:
I have now finished my third copy-edit/peer review of the article, listing 60 new comments for Poeticbent to address, all of which have now been taken care of. As for the comments from the first FAC, Poeticbent and I have addressed, or at least attempted to address, all of them, including Squeamish Ossifrage's 120-something :).
Per Ian Rose's advice, we are asking you to take a quick look at the article and see whether you consider your concerns to have been dealt with or not before we renominate at FAC. Poeticbent and I have put hours and hours into this article, and we would greatly appreciate any pre-renomination feedback that you are willing to give us. Thank you! AmericanLemming (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
NBC News article
editHello there, Poeticbent! I see we have a new editor who keeps trying to add the same content but in the wrong way. I think the article is a reliable source with some useful information, so I decided to help User:Beni2525 by putting the info in the right section and putting it in my own words to avoid plagiarism and close paraphrasing. If you think it needs to be reworded further to avoid violating copyright, or if that information doesn't belong in the article at all, I would be happy to change or remove it, as long as you explain your reasoning. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
"Star of David"
editAt Archaeological studies, the article states
The findings consisted of yellow tiles stamped with a Star of David for the Jewish-style bathhouse, and the building foundations with a wall. As explained by forensic archeologist Caroline Sturdy Colls, the importance of the new evidence is paramount because the second set of gas chambers built at Treblinka were housed in the only brick building of the entire camp before its demolition.
However, contrary to the quote above, the symbol on the tiles is not a Star of David. It is actually the trademark of a Polish company called Dziewulski i Lange. See this article (in Polish) by Paweł Budziński. In the last sentence, Budziński mentions that Dziewulski i Lange's symbol is often confused with a Star of David due to their similarity. Also note, a Staffordshire University website concerning the archeological dig at Treblinka identifies Dziewulski i Lange as the manufacturer of the tiles found by the Coll's team. Further, the Staffordshire University webpage does not describe the symbol as a Star of David.
I suspect this information might original research, and I'm not aware of a reliable source explaining the tiles do not depict a Star of David as claimed by Smithsonian and our sources in Wikipedia's Treblinka article. I just wanted to point out this issue. Perhaps experienced editors will know what to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrQuinnEskimoWoman (talk • contribs) 02:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note DrQuinn. I will deal with it shortly. However, what I don't like is the automatic assertion that because the Star of David was the logo of «Dziewulski i Lange», therefore it could not have been the Star of David. Brothers Lange (as the name suggests) although known by their Polish first names Józef and Władysław Lange might have been of the Polish-Jewish background (Lange is not a Slavic surname), and so they picked the Star of David for the logo of their company created with businessman Jan Dziewulski in mid 19th century... when sovereign Poland did not yet exist. – They began producing tiles in 1886. I presume the once established logo remained. The foundry was nationalized by the communists in 1950 and renamed as ZPC Opoczno.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Poeticbent talk 05:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
"If it looks like a duck... it's a duck." Poeticbent talk 06:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. I believe the star was probably something more like the "mullet of six points pierced" which you can see at this article.
The Polish article I cited noted the symbol's "similarity to the Star of David" so I took that to mean that it was not in fact a Star of David. Moreover, the archeology website did not identify it as a Star of David, which seemed odd since the issue was of such central importance in the Smithsonian documentary and subsequent articles. DrQuinnEskimoWoman (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. I believe the star was probably something more like the "mullet of six points pierced" which you can see at this article.
- We need to be able to identify the source for what it is in order to get the perspective on the criticism of the Smithsonian documentary. For example, The Daily Stormer commentary on the alleged pierced mullet star (per your comment) comes from vehemently antisemitic neo-Nazi website people already talk about elsewhere.[7] Poeticbent talk 14:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
- The direct quote in Polish from the article published in Tygodnik Opoczyński (TOP) weekly by engineer Paweł Budziński is as follows: "... dawne logo firmy przedstawiające umieszczoną pomiędzy dużymi literami D i L sześcioramienną gwiazdę w okręgu z kropką pośrodku, ze względu na podobieństwo do Gwiazdy Dawida bywa dziś niesłusznie kojarzone z pamiątkami po Żydach zamiast z opoczyńską fabryką." — dr inż. Paweł Budziński. Translation: "... the old logo of the company showing between the big letters D and L the Six-Arm Star in a circle with the dot in the middle, because of the similarity to the Star of David, is sometimes wrongfully associated today with the Jewish memorabilia instead of the Opoczno factory." — Dr of Eng. Paweł Budziński. For once, the author clearly states that the association is with memorabilia, not with the Jewish religion. Secondly he does not say why the association is wrong (niesłuszne) in his opinion. It is but an opinion. Budziński does not say, not even suggests in his article whether anybody has ever said anything at all to confirm the real meaning of the Star. Poeticbent talk 22:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- I looked at all seven sources that you cited above, Poeticbent, and I'm still a little confused. My understanding is that the tiles are stamped with what appears to be the Star of David, but that it's also the logo of the company that produced the tiles. By the way, Edward Kopówka, who is probably the world's leading expert on Treblinka, says this about the tiles: "Mimo, że na płytkach widnieje gwiazda Dawida wyprodukowała je firma polska przejęta później przez niemieckiego volksdeutscha". What exactly does that mean? The machine translation didn't make any sense. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- No confusion there, dear AmericanLemming although I might have given the wrong impression originally. The full paragraph from the Dziennik.pl says (quote): "Najciekawsze odkrycie archeologów to kafelki, którymi wykończone były tzw. stare komory gazowe. Znaleziono dwie płytki. Od kilku dni wiadomo, że pochodzą one z fabryki ceramicznej Dziewulski i Lange z Opoczna. "Mimo, że na płytkach widnieje gwiazda Dawida wyprodukowała je firma polska przejęta później przez niemieckiego volksdeutscha" – poinformował Edward Kopówka." In word-for-word translation it says: "The most interesting find of the archeologists were the tiles used in the building of the old gas chambers. Two tiles were found. It has been known since several days that the tiles came from the ceramics factory Dziewulski i Lange of Opoczno. 'Although the tiles display a Star of David they were produced by a Polish factory later taken over by a German volksdeutsche – informed Edward Kopówka." End of quote. Poeticbent talk 06:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- The direct quote in Polish from the article published in Tygodnik Opoczyński (TOP) weekly by engineer Paweł Budziński is as follows: "... dawne logo firmy przedstawiające umieszczoną pomiędzy dużymi literami D i L sześcioramienną gwiazdę w okręgu z kropką pośrodku, ze względu na podobieństwo do Gwiazdy Dawida bywa dziś niesłusznie kojarzone z pamiątkami po Żydach zamiast z opoczyńską fabryką." — dr inż. Paweł Budziński. Translation: "... the old logo of the company showing between the big letters D and L the Six-Arm Star in a circle with the dot in the middle, because of the similarity to the Star of David, is sometimes wrongfully associated today with the Jewish memorabilia instead of the Opoczno factory." — Dr of Eng. Paweł Budziński. For once, the author clearly states that the association is with memorabilia, not with the Jewish religion. Secondly he does not say why the association is wrong (niesłuszne) in his opinion. It is but an opinion. Budziński does not say, not even suggests in his article whether anybody has ever said anything at all to confirm the real meaning of the Star. Poeticbent talk 22:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
According to this link published by the Polish Jewish community the Star symbol Caroline Colls found is not the Star of David. It also cites the Polish article I provided above. I also found one example of a DiL tile with an octagram instead of a hexagram. DrQuinnEskimoWoman (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- The article by "the Polish Jewish community" you quote contains false information, that the number of tiles found by Colls was large which is not true. The article was written on the basis of the same article by Paweł Budziński which is already assessed per above. The provenance of your pic is unknown. Unless there's further new evidence analyzed by real scientists, nothing is going to change. Please stop going around in circles and wasting our time. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 13:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Weighing in here: I have to agree with Poeticbent about the picture of the octagram tile; we don't know where it came from, so it doesn't really prove anything. As far as the Star of David goes, the NBC article on the matter says that the tiles have the Star of David on them, and I trust them more than the other sources you've brought up so far. I don't have a strong opinion either way; maybe the star isn't the Star of David, and it's just the company logo. But it looks an awful lot like the Star of David, and we have reliable sources that say that it is, so until we find other reliable sources that say it isn't, I think we should leave the article the way that it is.
- Though, as a compromise of sorts, we could add a picture of one of the tiles to the article. If you're really that concerned that the star is being misidentified as the Star of David, how about we give our readers the evidence and let them decide? :) AmericanLemming (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Have these tiles been tested for Zyklon? If this is the only building that was brick and it was the gas chamber then it would show Zyklon. Unless gasoline exhaust was used and then that much gas in that small a building and that many victims would likely show some fume residue or chemical reaction.
2601:181:8301:4510:F416:97F2:B46B:F60D (talk) 00:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The backside of tiles are usually/always porous. Enough gas exhaust to kill millions should contaminant grout and tile. Happy labbing. 2601:181:8301:4510:20D6:7410:B11B:776D (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
TILES - Star of David I doubt the Nazis were making tiles at Treblinka. Seeing as how the story is that they were marched directly to their deaths, I don't see how the Jews had the time. Leaves us with the Polish trademark - duh. 2601:181:8301:4510:ACDD:BE7F:86F8:B03A (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Some last-minute preparations
editPoeticbent: I'm planning to renominate tomorrow afternoon, US Central Time, or somewhere between 18:00 and 24:00 UTC (12:00 pm to 6:00 pm US Central Time). Since I haven't taken a close look at the article in months, I proofread it today, and I'll be making some minor prose changes tonight. Feel free to revert or otherwise modify my changes if you disagree with them. Also, I got Ucucha's Harvard citation error-finding script, so I'm also going to be working on fixing those.
As one last note, I plan to write an article on Opoczno (the company that made the tiles that Caroline Sturdy Colls found recently). I think that might help clear up the confusion over the Star of David/company logo controversy. AmericanLemming (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds good. I can help you out with the ZPC Opoczno, known in Polish as Zespół Zakładów Płytek Ceramicznych Opoczno. It was a monopoly under communism. It has a staff of 2,500 and I think it is still owned by the state according to Wprost. Although we might be interested mostly in its history, the article would have to be structured similar to all articles about existing business ventures. — Good to have you back AmericanLemming. I will re-read Treblinka now, Poeticbent talk 03:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Addendum. The Opoczno S.A. Group shareholders used to include: Credit Suisse First Boston Ceramic Partners (Poland) "Sarl" – 50.2%, the State Treasury – 39.1%, and OPOCZNO employees – 10.7%. See: earlier company profile in English. However, apparently S.a.r.l consortium already sold all its shares to Cersanit S.A. (pl) according to bankier.pl. Here's the rundown with brief history also in English. Poeticbent talk 04:32, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Diesel exhaust
editThe sources do not support the following sentence: "The victims were gassed with the fumes generated by a Soviet tank engine which had been removed from a Red Army tank captured during Operation Barbarossa. According to SS-Scharführer Erich Fuchs, it was a 200 horsepower, water cooled V-8 gasoline engine; Fuchs was responsible for installing it.[89][90] " Source [89] (page 31) refers to the engine at Sobibor, the other [90] says it was a diesel engine. The popular T-26 light tank was air cooled and only 90hp; the bigger BT_tanks were 400hp or more. The actual quote from Fuchs was "It was a heavy Russian benzine engine, at least 200 horsepower." Raquel Baranow (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- The Treblinka and Sobibor camps were built not far from each other in roughly the same timeframe following Wannsee Conference. There's no reason to believe the the choices available to Scharführer Erich Fuchs during the construction of the gas chambers were bigger than they really were. We know for sure that Fuchs installed a 200 horsepower, water cooled V-8 gasoline engine at Sobibor because he said so himself. He brought it from Lwow. It is hard to believe that Fuchs would search for a different type of motor every time he was asked to instal it.[8] However, this is an extrapolation in lieu of a statement. We can safely remove it from our article as unconfirmed, because different sources say different things, and some of the original claims are quite unrealistic. Poeticbent talk 01:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
- Addendum. Chief argument for the identification of the fuel comes directly from all available affidavits. There was a fuel supply tank at the camp ... just one according to eye-witness testimonies. It was a tank of petrol, set ablaze by insurgents during the Treblinka uprising of 2 August 1943. It exploded and set fire to the surrounding structures. – Meanwhile, all diesel motors, especially the heavy-duty diesel engines used in military trucks and tanks require diesel fuel. The engine and the fuel work together as a system. An effort in the late ’30s to extend the diesel engine’s use to passenger cars was interrupted by World War II. The cars driven by the SS at Trebinka (see Rajzman 1945 at U.S. Congress, and Ząbecki's court testimonies at Düsseldorf) could not have been fueled by diesel ... and neither was the gassing apparatus, unless there was a second supply tank on premises, not mentioned in any known literature on the subject. Poeticbent talk 15:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Comments
editI just had one of my copyedits reverted and wanted to explain what I was doing. We cannot use terms like "fall" per WP:SEASON. We should not use hardcoded image sizes without a special reason per WP:IMGSIZE. Words like "additionally" and "however" are padding which don't belong on an article. I hadn't noticed this had passed GA; it certainly cannot retain this status with basic faults like this in place. --John (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
This article is supposed to be written in British English according to the template on this talk page. I see there are quite a lot of American English spellings and constructions on the article. Has this crept in since the GA process? I hate to think it passed in this state. --John (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- There are additional guidelines at WP:IMGSIZE which could be used to maintain the balanced look, such as the upright scaling factor. The same with WP:SEASON; the sources can be revisited to make it better, because "fall" and "mid-year" do not mean the same thing in the Northern hemisphere. I'm surprised you, User:John, did not notice the bright green GA sticker but it is there for a good reason of course. You did not have any of your "copyedits reverted." Only the parts of original layout were restored which you changed for the worse without communicating your intentions and/or seeking consensus. On the other hand, you yourself performed a blanket revert rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion. The upright scaling factor is very much a part of image use policy, and it needs to be reintroduced to make the article look good. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 21:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Mm. I see it has failed at FAR twice, in part through prose concerns. I have tried to address the worst problems with the prose. I think there is some work still to be done. If the prose was fully tidied this article could have another shot at FA I think. --John (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- To answer your question, American English spellings and constructions have not crept in since this passed GA; if anything, I inadvertently introduced them during the GA review when I first copy-edited the article. I have since steadily reduced the number of such spellings and phrasing, although it is difficult for me to see them. The prose was atrocious before my initial copyedit in October 2013, and I got it to a somewhat readable state then. After it became a good article, I have continued to rework the prose over time, copy-editing the article no less than four times since then.
- As for your comments regarding the prose, I must respectfully disagree with your assessment. The prose isn't perfect, but it's of fairly high quality. Is it brilliant? No, but it is clear and fairly concise. I have no doubt that you are an excellent copy editor, but you seem to know very little about the GA process, particularly the fact that the standards are a lot lower than those for FA status. Per the Good article criteria, an article only need comply with five of the 50 MoS pages, those regarding lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. You may want to read the essay Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not.
- Anyway, I appreciate your efforts to tighten the prose and consistently use British English throughout the entire article, but I disagree with your assessment that this article is not worthy of GA status in the strongest terms possible. AmericanLemming (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Fair enough. You're right that most of my experience is in Featured Article Reviews, and I have only a little experience of the GA process. Did you notice there was a wodge of material that was duplicated and appeared twice, word-for-word? Anyway, I think it is looking better now. --John (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Mm. I see it has failed at FAR twice, in part through prose concerns. I have tried to address the worst problems with the prose. I think there is some work still to be done. If the prose was fully tidied this article could have another shot at FA I think. --John (talk) 21:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
(moved discussion about lyric to section below)
- What does this mean: A short time later the new home was set on fire by its new occupant who also fled to avoid capture.[142] ? --John (talk) 08:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate on your point, please? Poeticbent talk 19:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- What does it mean? What new home? --John (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
That's the "farmhouse" built by the Sonderkommandos in place of the camp's original bakery using bricks acquired from the complete demolition of the gas chambers. Poeticbent talk 21:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- I wondered at that. As a reasonably intelligent reader who has thoroughly read and interrogated the text, if it was not clear to me, it may be unclear to many. I will fix it. It's a great article by the way; thank you and AmericanLemming for all your work on it. --John (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- We're talking about Strebel, right? I added something, and of course it can be tweaked. I'd still like to go right over the whole article one more time before submitting it to another FAR. What were the sourcing issues again? --John (talk) 22:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- I wondered at that. As a reasonably intelligent reader who has thoroughly read and interrogated the text, if it was not clear to me, it may be unclear to many. I will fix it. It's a great article by the way; thank you and AmericanLemming for all your work on it. --John (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- What does it mean? What new home? --John (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Can you elaborate on your point, please? Poeticbent talk 19:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Treblinka extermination camp/archive2#15 June 2014 update
Poeticbent talk 00:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I read both FACs at the time and then again recently. I even commented in the first one. See in On 19 August 1944 the church in Prostyń and its bell tower were blown up as the last German defence centre against the Red Army in the area, who blew up the church, the retreating defenders or the Soviets? It's often worth using active voice to avoid this sort of ambiguity. --John (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the links to the first nomination. It was good to refresh my memory. – The eye-witness account came from the affidavit of Rev. Tadeusz Borowy from Prostyń.[9] During the Soviet advance, the church served as headquarters of the German Army with steeples used by them as observation towers. By that time, most of Prostyń was already burned down. The local Poles were expelled across the Bug river to Dolna Małkinia. The church was partly damaged. Next morning, on 19 August 1944, Borowy was approached at Dolna Małkinia by the German officer with a Silesian translator and asked if he wants to take anything from the church, because the church was already rigged with explosives by them. Two German soldiers took the priest in a lorry back to Prostyń. He took out the sacred statue of Trinity and the Monstrance hidden in the back of the church. As soon as he left, the Germans, who already wired the church with cables running along the road to the other side of the rail tracks, blew it up into a single pile of rubble. Poeticbent talk 00:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, I have slightly reworded the article to remove the ambiguity. --John (talk) 06:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Image sizes
editThe problem with forcing image sizes is that what looks good on one setup may not look good on others. As far as possible, we leave image sizes unforced so that logged-in users can set their own preferences. --John (talk) 08:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- There seem to be a misunderstanding with regard to what "forcing image sizes" mean. No images in this article have their sized "forced" in pixels. The upright scaling factor is a proportional device meant for both logged-in users who set their own preferences, and the general public. Our template is designed to display files in proportion to each other on every setup (not just one). – Third opinions are always welcome of course, Poeticbent talk 19:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- If several or many editors see a pressing need to make the portraits smaller and the map image larger, I will go with it. I can see a stronger argument for making the map bigger than I can for making the portraits smaller. What is the rationale for the latter? --John (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Song lyrics
edit(moved from section above)
- Where does the translation of the words of the song come from? --John (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
- Good question. Webpage copyrighted by Chris Webb & CL HEART (2007) is lacking inline citations. It is based on six sources listed below, you pick: 1). Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka by Yitzhak Arad, Indiana University Press 1987; 2). Shoah by Claude Lanzmann, Pantheon Books 1985; 3). Those were the Days by Klee, Dressen and Riess, Hamish Hamilton 1991; 4). Statement by Franz Stangl on 17 July 1967, Dinslaken prison (incomplete); 5). Holocaust Historical Society (incomplete); 6). Hartheim Museum (inclomplete).[10] – My wild guess is, the quoted text was translated from the secretly and illegally (!) taped interview with Suchomel in the German language (or its transcript in German) for Lanzmann's film by whoever worked with him at the time. Lanzmann does not know German. The actual video clip is available at YouTube if I remember correctly. Poeticbent talk 01:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. I do know German and would be willing to do a better translation, if that wouldn't contravene WP:NOR. Meantime I don't think we can be the only written source for the words. --John (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please go ahead and improve on the translation if you can. The original lyrics are in German, WP:NOR would not be applicable; besides, the translator of currently quoted text is missing. Unlike other English versions, Wikipedia's improved translation would automatically become public domain which is good. Poeticbent talk 14:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- I will think about it. Meantime I will comment out the lyrics until there is more clarity over the sourcing. --John (talk) 08:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please go ahead and improve on the translation if you can. The original lyrics are in German, WP:NOR would not be applicable; besides, the translator of currently quoted text is missing. Unlike other English versions, Wikipedia's improved translation would automatically become public domain which is good. Poeticbent talk 14:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. I do know German and would be willing to do a better translation, if that wouldn't contravene WP:NOR. Meantime I don't think we can be the only written source for the words. --John (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- Where does the translation of the words of the song come from? --John (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
(end of moved section)
The lyrics recalled by Unterscharführer Franz Suchomel are quoted below (word-for-word):
- Looking squarely ahead, brave and joyous, at the world, the squads march to work. All that matters to us now is Treblinka. It is our destiny. That's why we've become one with Treblinka in no time at all. We know only the word of our Commander, we know only obedience and duty, we want to serve, to go on serving, until a little luck ends it all. Hurray! [1]
References
- ^ Suchomel's lyrics in German: "Wir kennen nur das Wort des Kommandanten / und nur Gehorsamkeit und Pflicht / Wir wollen weiter, weiter leisten / bis daß das kleine Glück uns einmal winkt. Hurrah!" Von Brumlik, Micha (17 February 1986). "Der zähe Schaum der Verdrängung". Der Spiegel. Spiegel-Verlag Rudolf Augstein GmbH & Co. KG. Retrieved 25 November 2013. Webb, Chris (2007). "The Perpetrators Speak". Belzec, Sobibor & Treblinka Death Camps. H.E.A.R.T HolocaustResearchProject.org. Retrieved 30 October 2013.
Parking this here for now while we figure out whether and how we can use it. --John (talk) 16:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- My free translation of the German lyric here ("Wir kennen nur das Wort des Kommandanten / und nur Gehorsamkeit und Pflicht / Wir wollen weiter, weiter leisten / bis daß das kleine Glück uns einmal winkt. Hurrah!") would be something like: "We know only the commander's word / and only obedience and duty / We want to continue making / until fortune beckons us again. Hurrah!" --John (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Asked for a comment on my talk (where I replied about translation in general): my version would be the almost the same for the first two lines, but it says "des Kommandanten", "the", not "our". ("Der Führer hat gesagt ...", no "our") - "leisten" is difficult, "Leistung" is "power / performance / achievement / [hard] work", - and we need "a little fortune", - "einmal" is "at some time" while "again" implies that it happened before. I never heard "beckons", learning, - literally "winken" is "wave" as in "wave good-bye", and "Glück" might rather mean happiness here, but "luck" is closer in sound and not wrong. My version then:
- We know only the word of the Commander. / We know only obedience and duty. / We want to keep working, working, / until a little luck will beckon us at some time. Hurray! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- We know only the word of the Commander. / We know only obedience and duty. / We want to keep working, working, / until luck beckons us some time. Hurray! --John (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Good, but I miss the little of "ein kleines Glück", - no idea how they translate that for Schlager of the period, - it should express that they expect only a small reward, - how? "Das große Glück" means great fulfillment, like the love of your life, kleines Glück is an opposite. Compare a recent song (they translate happiness), this title and this saying, "Better a little luck every day than waiting for the big one.". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- This is the problem with translating poetry, even very bad poetry! Das kleine Glück is essentially untranslatable. I think "A lucky break" or "happenstance" are the best I can come up with. Both "Little luck" and "a little luck" sound very awkward to me. --John (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, it's what makes it interesting. Are there other terms to render that they expect little reward, - I think that is more important than luck/happiness/chance. Mary Poppins' "With a little bit of ..." comes to my mind, or "ein kleines bisschen Glück" as here, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- ps: several ways --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- "A bit of luck" maybe captures it quite well. --John (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds good, but can it beckon or wave? (Remember I never heard beckon so far, uneasy about usage and ready to learn.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Beckons means "gestures" and is definitely the right word. Thanks for that link by the way, it is excellent. --John (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds good, but can it beckon or wave? (Remember I never heard beckon so far, uneasy about usage and ready to learn.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- "A bit of luck" maybe captures it quite well. --John (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- I didn't question the word ;) - question was if "a bit" can beckon, but if "luck" can beckon, a bit probably as well. Summary:
- "We know only the word of the Commander. / We know only obedience and duty. / We want to keep working, working, / until a bit of luck beckons us some time. Hurray!" - Hurray, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Ja, stimmt. But now the question about what we do with this in the article, if anything. Thoughts? --John (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- I thought, you were planning on putting it back. Poeticbent talk 22:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Are you ok with just putting back the bit we are talking about with the translation we have agreed? --John (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please take a look at the quoted lyrics in the book Shoah: The Complete Text of the Acclaimed Holocaust Film. They are long enough for the stand-alone quotation. A shorter paragraph would probably look stubby if it was reduced too much, featuring only the new and improved words from a different source. But the choice is yours. Poeticbent talk 00:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- I saw the snippet view you posted. I don't have access to the full source. My own feeling is that this lends itself better to a brief quote than a full rendition of the lyric. I worry that the sourcing is ambiguous and that reproducing the lyric in full may lend a slightly pro-Nazi slant to the article (not of course that I think this is your intention). We (quite rightly) don't include lengthy quotes from the Jewish victims' narrative either. As I said at the first FAR, an article on a sensitive issue like this needs to be especially careful about language and balance. I am, of course, open to argument and to other views. --John (talk) 12:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- Please take a look at the quoted lyrics in the book Shoah: The Complete Text of the Acclaimed Holocaust Film. They are long enough for the stand-alone quotation. A shorter paragraph would probably look stubby if it was reduced too much, featuring only the new and improved words from a different source. But the choice is yours. Poeticbent talk 00:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
- The page in a book you don't seem to have access to John possibly due to your location (mine is books.google.ca) is a Jewish source as you say, French-Jewish to be exact: The Complete Text of the Holocaust Film by Lanzmann in English translation from the French, regrettably with no real credits for the work performed, which is often the case with authors who are frantically possessive of their publication. As noted by some critics it is a highly controversial docu-film. The only credit from the editorial page reads: "English subtitles of the film by A.Whitelaw and W. Byron." The whole lyrics are made up of 286 characters; they are not "lengthy". DER SPIEGEL 8/1986 for example, quotes only Suchomel in German, naturally. We can follow that format; an inline citation preceded by a colon. But please, re-read the whole article as promised because some of the latest revisions resulted in multiple grammatical errors. Poeticbent talk 16:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Martyrology
editI am uneasy about this. It seems like we are inventing a new word for this Wikipedia article. Also, what is a Museum of Fight and Martyrdom? -John (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- Would Museum of Struggle and Martyrdom in Treblinka be better? --John (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
- I see it was translated correctly elsewhere in the article so I changed it in the picture caption. --John (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Treblinka 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://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/genocide/gcpoltreb1.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://opoczno.republika.pl/bajka.htm
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: 5 June 2024).
- 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 21:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Should be a section on Colls in this article. Her results are probably the only mainstream real research done so far.
2601:181:8000:D6D0:30F2:FCF6:A6A1:C2A (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Camp and the Museum location
editThe Camp and the Museum sit half way between Poniatowo and Wólka Okrąglik according to Google map, but Wólka Okrąglik is located on the road 627 from Małkinia Górna through the Treblinka village, therefore somewhat closer to the Museum. The road 627 does not go through Poniatowo at all. Anything else is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH:
- https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/Muzeum+Regionalne+w+Siedlcach:+Muzeum+Walki+i+M%C4%99cze%C5%84stwa+w+Treblince,+Kos%C3%B3w+Lacki,+08-330+Kos%C3%B3w+Lacki,+Poland/Treblinka,+Poland/@52.6341556,22.0574018,15z/data=!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x471f08c8aaebc055:0xe86edaebb89e43f6!2m2!1d22.0523392!2d52.6311606!1m5!1m1!1s0x471f06262a727c5d:0x7e64460ba9188f5a!2m2!1d22.0258341!2d52.6588431!3e0 Poeticbent talk 15:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Emoji usage
editWhy is there an Star of David emoji used in the Archeological section? Since when does Wikipedia use emojis? It seems inappropriate. I would remove it, but I don't know what it's supposed to say. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 03:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
- This is pretty much self-explanatory. The star is part of a logo: Dziewulski i Lange – D✡L since 1886. It is not a "plus" (+) nor an "ampersand" (&) which is of considerable significance in this particular instance. Neither is it an emoji. Thanks, Poeticbent talk
Bones on ground. Human Hair for raw materials, Any pictures?
editBones on the ground - any photos? I browsed Colls report on Treblinka and found few worthwhile specifics. Do you have a source for her data,etc. 2601:181:8301:4510:F416:97F2:B46B:F60D (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hair used for manufacturing material
I'm curious as to why there is no pictures of any of the items like the u-boat boots stuffed with human hair, mattresses stuffed with human hair. I believe something about bottoms for felt boots used by Railroad employees. I have been searching online for awhile but still found nothing. These types of items should be included. Osummer (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- The pictures you seem to be talking about would be of no significance nor informative value to this particular article. However, there are many historic photographs showing sacks of human hair from the Holocaust victims and fabrics made using them.[11] Tons of human hair were processed into yarn at the SS Schaeffler textile factory in 1943; no idea why you can't locate these photographs online by yourself: (1) (2) (3) — Poeticbent talk 15:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
![[11]](https://web.archive.org/web/20161017151710/https://mimichaelsz.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/screen-shot-2012-04-05-at-22-37-51.png){kind=link}
Tons of hair must have produced lots of goods. DO we have any surviving articles made of this hair. With DNA testing we could confirm race,ethnicity,age,sex,etc. If there are no articles then where does this claim come from? 2601:181:8301:4510:ACDD:BE7F:86F8:B03A (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Citation query
editLanzmann
editI have a question about footnote 89:
- Lanzmann, Claude (1985). Shoah (film) (Para-documentary film). France.
Featuring secretly videotaped home interview on YouTube with SS-Unterscharführer (Corporal) Franz Suchomel who served at Treblinka; as well as other interviews.
{{cite AV media}}: External link in|quote=
It needs citation details, including publisher—France has been added to the publisher parameter—and times, or page numbers from the book. I'm wondering what's meant by "para-documentary film", who is being quoted (and why), and in what sense it is home video. SarahSV (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
- Neither the template formatting nor the reference description is acceptable by our standards. The video clip in question has been uploaded to YouTube without source description and appropriate licence. Shoah (film) is not mentioned. According to WP:YTREF video must not infringe copyright. Poeticbent talk 01:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Poeticbent, it was you who added that it was a "para-documentary film" in August 2013, and in November 2013 the YouTube link and that it was a "home interview". What did you mean by para documentary and home interview? SarahSV (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Good catch, User:SlimVirgin. I would certainly not do it like this today, although I only revised what was already there. Treblinka is a Good article at present. I don't know what I might have been thinking back then. There was a long discussion about the song lyrics in talk. It is obvious though that the video clip was taken from the film, even if the YouTube uploader does not admit to it now. Many scenes were carefully staged in that film by Lanzmann. I suppose, that is what I might have meant by para-documentary realism. The settings staged by Lanzmann were metafictional. Interview with Franz Suchomel was taped illegally in his home, alas it was a "home interview." Here's the relevant quote: Lanzmann (Part 2/7, 0:19/8:25): – "You are a very important eye-witness / and you can explain what Treblinka was." Suchomel: – "But don't use my name." Lanzmann: – "No, no, I promised." Documentary productions are supposed to be legal. Poeticbent talk 03:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm not sure what's meant re: documentary productions are supposed to be legal. Lanzmann recorded an undercover interview with an SS man from Treblinka. I can't see a problem with that. But regardless, we can't build our own opinions of a source into the citation. SarahSV (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- I see what you mean. Lying to the man about confidentiality becomes trivial under the circumstances. I agree. Poeticbent talk 04:35, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- The film is a high-quality RS. The more important point is that we shouldn't add our personal views to citations. I can't find the discussion you mentioned about the song. SarahSV (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. SarahSV (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- The film is a high-quality RS. The more important point is that we shouldn't add our personal views to citations. I can't find the discussion you mentioned about the song. SarahSV (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Kopówka
editI also have a question about this (Cremation pits, second paragraph): "The bodies were placed on rails over wood, splashed with petrol, and burned. It was a harrowing sight, according to Jankiel Wiernik, with the bellies of pregnant women exploding from boiling amniotic fluid."
- Source: pp. 104–105 of Kopówka, Edward; Rytel-Andrianik, Paweł (2011), "Treblinka II – Obóz zagłady" [Monograph, chapt. 3: Treblinka II Death Camp] (PDF file, direct download 20.2 MB), Dam im imię na wieki [I will give them an everlasting name. Isaiah 56:5] (in Polish), Drohiczyńskie Towarzystwo Naukowe [The Drohiczyn Scientific Society], pp. 37–39, 42, 54, 60, ISBN 978-83-7257-496-1, retrieved 9 September 2013,
with list of Catholic rescuers of Jews imprisoned at Treblinka, selected testimonies, bibliography, alphabetical indexes, photographs, English language summaries, and forewords by Holocaust scholars.
{{citation}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help)
Can you say what that source is, and what it says on pp. 104–105 that supports the text? SarahSV (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Please give me some time to figure things out. This article went through massive changes not only during the successful Good Article nomination, but also during the subsequent and soon abandoned Feature Article nomination. At that time however, a number of working references were removed or replaced as not suitable for the FA class article. Poeticbent talk 05:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, there's no rush. You added it here in August 2013. SarahSV (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- I can't find ISBN 978-83-7257-496-1 anywhere except on Wikipedia and mirror sites. That is the ISBN that the source itself gives (p. 4), but it doesn't seem to be referenced anywhere else. SarahSV (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- The OCLC WorldCat lists the same book several times. Dam im imie̜ na wieki (Iz 56,5) with ISBN 9788372574978 (OCLC 756209350), Dam im imie̜ na wieki (Iz 56,5) with ISBN 9788372574978 (OCLC 745973498), and Dam im imię na wieki (Iz 56,5) with ISBN 9788372574978 (OCLC 802166522). The last two digits in PDF source don't match: "8" instead of "6-1". Poeticbent talk 18:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. That says the publisher is Wydawn. Sióstr Loretanek, which seems to be a religious publisher. [12] Can you say what kind of source it is, and what it says on pp. 104–105 that supports those words? SarahSV (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
References section
editThere are page numbers in the References (long citations) section. I'm assuming this is a mistake and that they can be safely removed. Let me know if they're there for a reason.
What kind of source is listed in that section, and what kind within the Citations section only? SarahSV (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Suppression of scientific proof?
editThe nefarious discussion about the use of diesel fuel for the extermination of Jews at Treblinka is being brought back from the dead in a fresh new edit war by User:Raquel Baranow.[13] — For the past discussions see Talk:Treblinka_extermination_camp/Archive 1#Diesel_vs_Gasoline, as well as Talk:Treblinka_extermination_camp/Archive 2#Petrol_(gasoline)_vs._diesel.
It is commonly known that the our understanding of the higly secretive operation of gas chambers at death camps have been improving as the years went on. Once in the past the mechanics of the murder process – as explained by death camp survivors – were believed to include Steam chamber (holocaust claim). However, we do not include such old and long revised claims (based on hearsay) in our Wikipedia articles because we know better. User:Raquel Baranow is of a different opinion. The diesel must return ... Why? Because it has been mentioned by Chris Webb in a book, just like the steam as well as electric current before that. — See: Donald Bloxham (2001). Genocide on Trial: War Crimes Trials and the Formation of Holocaust History and Memory. Oxford University Press. p. 119. ISBN 0198208723.
Revert warring by User:Raquel Baranow about the Diesel exhaust (i-link included!) and his removal of explanatory notes, is followed in our article by a sentence which reads: SS-Scharführer Erich Fuchs was responsible for installing it.
[1][2] — Installing what? Both citations at the end of sentence, feature the testimony of Erich Fuchs in the Sobibór-Bolender trial about the installation of "a heavy Russian gasoline engine [probably a tank or train engine] with at least 200 h.p. [V-enginel 8 cylinders, water cooled]"
at Sobibor. Fuchs installed the gassing engine at Treblinka as well, but ... was it different from the first one? – Not likely, and here's why (deleted by Raquel Baranow with misleading edit summary).
There's an ongoing debate with regard to the type of fuel at Treblinka used as the lethal agent. However, the chief argument for its identification as petrol (i.e., gasoline, or gas) comes directly from the eyewitness testimonies of insurgents who survived the Treblinka uprising. On 2 August 1943, they set ablaze a petrol [i.e. gasoline] tank causing it to explode. No second tank containing a different type of fuel (i.e., diesel) has ever been mentioned in any known literature on the subject. All diesel motors require diesel fuel; the engine and the fuel work together as a system. An effort in the late '30s to extend the diesel engine's use to passenger cars was interrupted by World War II (Diesel Fuels Technical Review).[a] Therefore, the cars driven by the SS at Trebinka (see Rajzman 1945 at U.S. Congress, and Ząbecki's court testimonies at Düsseldorf) could not have been fueled by diesel, without a second fuel tank on premises, and neither was the killing apparatus.
- ^ Arad 1987, p. 31: Testimony of SS Scharführer Erich Fuchs in the Sobibór-Bolender trial, Düsseldorf.
- ^ McVay, Kenneth (1984). "The Construction of the Treblinka Extermination Camp". Yad Vashem Studies, XVI. Jewish Virtual Library.org. Retrieved 3 November 2013.
- a. ^ "Diesel Fuels Technical Review - Chevron" (PDF). Chevron Corporation. 2007: 5, 6.
The first commercial diesel engines were large and operated at low speeds. They were used to power ships, trains, and industrial plants. By the 1930s, diesel engines were also powering trucks and buses. An effort in the late '30s to extend the engine's use to passenger cars was interrupted by World War II. A chapter in the review discusses diesel engines, especially the heavy-duty diesel engines used in trucks and buses, because the engine and the fuel work together as a system.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help)
Poeticbent talk 17:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- The text you added (diff, from "There's an ongoing debate") was original research. The article has to be based on high-quality mainstream secondary sources, preferably academic sources, and (with care) the primary sources they use. SarahSV (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, Chevron Technical Review of Diesel Fuels qualifies as a high-quality mainstream secondary source. Poeticbent talk 18:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- You are citing "Diesel Fuels Technical Review", a 107-page document by Chevon Global Marketing. They don't mention Treblinka or the Holocaust. They do say, on p. 1: "By the 1930s, diesel engines were also powering trucks and buses. An effort in the late ’30s to extend the engine's use to passenger cars was interrupted by World War II." That supports one sentence of your edit, but it has nothing to do with Treblinka. What is your source for the rest of it? SarahSV (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not asking for much, SarahSV, only that one word be removed from this article as historically indefensible. You yourself, routinely remove controversial statements which have been challenged by research, even though they originate in books. Below is the relevant source mentioned in my edit.
- Samuel Rajzman (1945). "An Account Before the American House Committee on Foreign Affairs in 1945". Treblinka Death Camp. Holocaust Education & Archive Research Team.
We had got some gasoline from trucks and tanks in the garage through one of our comrades, a mechanic from Czestochowa. On the day of the coup this gasoline was poured into his apparatus instead of disinfectant, and he sprinkled it liberally according to our leader's instructions. The arsenal exploded and everything was burned, except the "bath" cabins, because it proved absolutely impossible to get near them. The flames devoured all the storerooms for clothes and shoes ... (Rajzman)
- I don't see what that has to do with your point. Poeticbent, you're adding your own opinions to Holocaust articles (not only this one), trying to prove people wrong, etc. The articles have to reflect the mainstream academic view, as expressed by secondary sources. That's all we do here. We summarize those sources. SarahSV (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- All I do is summarize secondary sources. Please try to comment on content, not on the contributors. Poeticbent talk 19:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- That isn't true. Look at the edit we're discussing (diff). Unsourced except for one sentence (of unclear relevance) sourced to Chevron Global Marketing, and two primary sources, not properly cited, the relevance of which is not explained. This can't continue, Poeticbent. These articles are important. We have to stick closely to the academic sources. SarahSV (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging AmericanLemming, the major contributor. SarahSV (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
AmericanLemming's take on this debate
editIt's been a long time since I worked on this article, so I'll preface my comments by stating I'm not as familiar with the historical literature as I used to be. I agree with SlimVirgin that Poeticbent's case seems somewhat flimsy. The fact that the survivors of the uprising only mention one fuel tank doesn't necessarily mean that there wasn't another one. Additionally, even if there was only one fuel tank and it only held petrol (gasoline), that doesn't mean that the killing apparatus couldn't have used diesel. A reliable source cited in the article (Kopowka pages 104-105) indicates that petrol (gasoline) was used for cremation. If we assume that cremation takes a lot more fuel than gassing people, then maybe the reason why there was only a gasoline tank is because they needed so much more of it. Also, I used Google Translate on Kopowka's recent monograph on Treblinka, and on page 84 he states that diesel engines were used in the gas chambers. In summary, I would say that the burden of proof falls on Poeticbent to find a high-quality secondary source that is primarily about the Holocaust that supports his claim that the killing apparatus used gasoline, and until then the article should use "diesel".
That being said, I also don't know if this is important enough of an issue to spend this much time arguing about it. Maybe as a compromise we could use "exhaust" instead of "diesel exhaust" or "gasoline exhaust" and leave out the explanatory footnote? I'm not sure how productive it is to debate a single detail like this when we could be creating content instead.
On a separate note, while I have noticed that Poeticbent sometimes uses sources that I consider to be of questionable quality, I also appreciate the sheer amount of work he's put into articles about the Holocaust, and I really enjoyed working with him to improve this article. He's a prolific content creator and probably our most active contributor in this area in terms of the number of articles created and amount of text added. He's created and expanded many articles about lower-profile perpetrators, survivors, and rescuers. While I may not always agree with him, I respect his commitment to Wikipedia's Holocaust articles. AmericanLemming (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi AmericanLemming, thanks for the reply. You mentioned Kopowka 2011 as an RS. I've been wondering about that because I can't find it cited elsewhere, yet this article relies heavily on it. That it's in Polish is an additional problem. SarahSV (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- AmericanLemming, I'd appreciate hearing why you see Kopówka & Rytel-Andrianik 2011 as an RS, and why the article relies on it so heavily. It's cited over 120 times.
- The book appears be a tribute to non-Jewish Poles who lived near Treblinka and helped Jews. The long cite is Dam im imię na wieki (Księga izajasza 56,5): Polacy z okolic Treblinki ratujący Żydów. Google translation: "I will give them an everlasting name (Book of Isaiah 56:5): Poles from the vicinity of Treblinka rescuing Jews". OCLC 745973498 The citation includes a link to an online version at echomatkibozejniepokalaniepoczetej.com, which seems to be a religious site. It's not clear whether that's a copyright violation.
- The authors are Edward Kopówka, curator of the Treblinka museum, and Paweł Rytel-Andrianik, a Catholic priest. The publisher seems to be Wydawnictwo Sióstr Loretanek, [14] which translates as the "Loretto Sisters Publishing House". The copyright is held by the Drohiczyn Library.
- I understand using this as an RS for Poles who helped, if the article covers that, but it's used for dates, figures (it's used more than any other source in the table of estimates), for the operation of the gas chambers, for the burning of bodies, what Suchomel said in court, the Treblinka song, and lots of other issues. Either it's citing the RS, in which case cite those directly, or it's publishing material not available elsewhere, which is a problem. SarahSV (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I mentioned Kopowka as a reliable source to back up my argument that we can’t say for certain that the gassing apparatus had to use gasoline. I thought that you primarily wanted my input on the gasoline/diesel debate, so I quickly found a source to make my point. Now I realize that your main concern with the article is the quality of the sourcing overall, and in particular the article’s heavy reliance on a Polish-language source that may not be the best source available. As you brought up in your FAC review of the article from 2014, while the Kopowka source may be a reliable source, it’s difficult to verify that because it’s in Polish.
- I should also note that while I have made 1,028 edits to the article, far more than any other editor, the vast majority of those were made improving the quality of the prose. That is, I’m the article’s main copy-editor; Poeticbent is mainly responsible for the content and the sourcing. The page history statistics are telling; while I’ve made 26.3% of all edits to the article and Poeticbent only 12.1% of all edits, he is responsible for 41.2% of all text added, while I am only responsible for 14.7% of all text added.
- Thus, Poeticbent made the decision to rely heavily on Kopowka when writing this article; I did not, and as I don’t speak a word of Polish I’m in no better position than you to determine whether or not it’s a reliable source; I had always just assumed that it was. I agree with you that it would probably be better to cite a reliable English-language source than Kopowka where possible. Personally, I would recommend Yitzhak Arad’s 1987 book Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka: The Operation Reinhard Death Camps. It’s a bit dated, but it’s also the most authoritative general work on Treblinka that I’m aware of, written as it is by a professional historian.
- Anyway, I regrettably do not have the time to significantly improve the quality of the sourcing by rereading Arad and replacing references to Kopowka. This is one of the reasons I stopped working on the article; I thought that it only failed the first FAC in 2013 (where Poeticbent was the nominator) because of the quality of the prose, so after it was archived I worked extensively with Poeticbent to copy-edit the article. It was during the second FAC in 2014 (where I was the nominator) that I realized that there were serious concerns with the quality of the sourcing, among other things, and I choose to withdraw the nomination. It was through that second FAC that I really began to understand Wikipedia’s very high standards for references, and it became apparent to me just how much reading and research would be required to get the article up to FA status. I recognized that I simply didn’t have the time to do the topic justice, and so I decided to cut back my Wikipedia editing to a more manageable level. AmericanLemming (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Cremation Pits
editCremation Pits - Where are these pits located? My understanding is that an Australian using ground penetrating radar could not find any soil disruption. Later other scholars (Colls?, etc) also could not find any. Is there other research that has been done on this since Coll?, who I believe is the latest study? Thanks 2601:181:8301:4510:A5BC:B749:CB72:A29 (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
- Please learn the proper way to edit a Talk Page - don't put comments on another topic under a totally different topic. That said, your post seems to be leaning dangerously close to Holocaust denial.
27 October 2017
editTreblinka extermination camp is a Good Article thanks to efforts of a small group of thoughtful and committed editors. However, since the last intense argument, even the most obvious signs of vandalism are not being addressed anymore (quote from summary): "No one gives a shít about u sțupid gypsies". (2001:18e8:2:28b7:34b9:1444:1880:2519)
- To reiterate, here's a reliable third-party source stating the obvious:
Wirth and Kallmayer were able to produce carbon monoxide in Sittu in February 1942 using the exhaust fumes of stationary high-powered tanks or locomotive motors. By controlling the revs per minute of the engines and restricting the air intake they were able to raise the concentration of CO in the exhaust fumes to the levels necessary to produce lethal poisoning. Water pipes that conducted the poisonous gas to the shower heads ran along the ceiling creating the illusion of a shower as in the simulated shower rooms. In Sobibor and Treblinka they applied the same system to produce carbon monoxide using heavy gasoline engines from tanks or locomotives captured from the Soviets. — Cymet, David (2010). History Vs. Apologetics: The Holocaust, the Third Reich, and the Catholic Church. Lexington Books. p. 263. ISBN 0739132938.
Both AmericanLemming and I have reached a consensus that the plain "exhaust" gas could be used as a compromise. Is there a need for an WP:RfC on this issue? Poeticbent talk 19:39, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
- Pinging Raquel Baranow. In the book you cite above, quoting a witness: "When the doors closed, the diesel engine broke down ..." (Cymet 2010, p. 274). And Webb (Columbia University Press, 2014), p. 56: "the engine room containing the two diesel engines that produced the gas". Nizkor: "the diesel engines used in Treblinka were much larger – they belonged to captured Soviet T-34 tanks." Bloxham (Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 118: "the murders at Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka involved the use of carbon monoxide exhaust fumes, generated from a diesel engine".
- The Gerstein Report about Belzec (in English): "'Your other and far more important task is the changeover of our gas chambers which actually work with diesel exhaust fumes into a better and quicker system.'" ... Also from Gerstein (this is the situation Cymet refers to above, where the engine didn't work at first): "The people are brought to death with the diesel exhaust fumes. But the diesel doesn't work! ... After two hours and 49 minutes–the stop watch has registered everything well–the diesel starts."
- Raul Hilberg, Destruction of the European Jews, 3:878 and 3:936–937 (cited by Rubenstein and Roth 2003, p. 198): "The gas first used at Belzec was bottled ... Later, Belzec is reported to have been equipped with a diesel motor; Treblinka is said to have had one from the start ..."
- Weindling (Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 297: "Wirth ... devised a lethal cocktail of petrol and diesel fuel with the gas produced by an engine. ... In mid-1942 Sobibor ... became operational using carbon monoxide gas from diesel motors." Weindling, p. 301: "Höss pointed out that Treblinka ... required ten times as many smaller gas chambers ... to equal the cavernous Auschwitz chambers. Diesel oil froze in cold weather, thereby paralyzing operation of carbon monoxide chambers."
- Bryant (University of Tennessee Press, 2014), p. 7: "Conveying the illusion of a functional bath, [at Treblinka] the pipes routed carbon monoxide gas into the chamber from a diesel engine located in an attached room."
- Do you have an RS stating that they weren't diesel engines, or couldn't have been, as you argue? SarahSV (talk) 16:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)