Talk:Zivilarbeiter

Image copyright problem with File:Polenabzeichen.jpg

The image File:Polenabzeichen.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --14:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge / Polish specific

@Piotrus: - I stumbled on this article by random. I have a few concerns - 1. the term isn't WWII specific (e.g. [1] French Zivil arbeiter from WWI). 2. The term isn't Polish-specific - e.g. Lithuanian use here - [2]. 3. It seems to me that this is a term used for all forced workers (or at least all non-POWs) - e.g. [3]. 4. From searching for the term (which mainly garnered German language hits), it seems to me that the COMMONNAME in English is "forced laborer" or "slave laborer" and not the German euphemism "Zivilarbeiter" (Civil worker) which masks the forced/slave aspect here. In summary - I question whether this should be separate from Forced labour under German rule during World War II (which also makes a hash of the Polish-specific nature of this (the section there starts with Polish-specific and then notes all sorts of other zivilarbeiters). Icewhiz (talk) 08:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Not exactly so. Nazis, being Germans, were pedantic in terms of classification of things. "Zivilarbeiter" was a category, one of several, of forced labor in the Reich. Lacking an adequate English-language equivalen, we have to use the euphemism, just like Ostarbeiter. I agree the subject of Forced labour under German rule during World War II is covered in a messy way, in particular, the section "Classifications" does not list labor in concentration/extermination camps. I also agree that the term is not exclusively for Polish workers. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

At the very least, I would suggest to use generic classification suggested by Bundesarchiv in here.It is claimed there that "In the course of the scientific discussion in recent years, it has been shown that a distinction between the following groups of forced laborers is appropriate..." . BTW, from there follows that "civilarbeiter" is not an euphemism, but a terminological distinction from POW (i.e.., milatary) laborers. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes - there was a distinction (via this term in WWII, note however prior use in WWI) vs. POWs. However this is still a Nazi euphemism - contrast "civilian laborer" (literal German) with "slave laborer"/"forced laborer" (the term English sources use). Icewhiz (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

No it is not, simply because these terms are not equivalent in their definitions. In the book you cite about Frenct they are called "Civilian forced laborers". The term is not very common. On the other hand, the English term "civilian laborer" has a different meaning, basically civilian + laborer. Hence we are left with the german loanword, commonly used, Just like, let me repeat, Ostarbeiter, hiwi, fuhrer, and may other loanwords which in English have rather specific meanings compared to German parlance. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

P.S. FYI, nl:Zivilarbeiter Bataillon is an article about the WWI concept. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Good find. I will have to disagree on this being a common loanword in English - as per my BEFORE here - only a minority of English sources use the German term (most use slave/forced laborer) in this particular instance.Icewhiz (talk) 03:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you are not listening to me: "slave labor" is an indiscriminate term. In Nazi Germany there were 13.5 million slave laborers, but only 8.4 Zivilarbeiter. Now that you brought the word usage to the attention, we have to be careful and see how exactly the sources use the term "slave laborer/forced laborer". Staszek Lem (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. This article, being a stub, certainly needs further improvement. It would be nice to add a nationality breakdown, too. Are you questioning the separate notability of this concept? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

It would pass notability. I'm questioning whether a merge (with a redirect to the appropriate section) in Forced labour under German rule during World War II is perhaps a good idea on editorial grounds - both because this particular article (on this sub-term) will be brief, and because the forced labour article is in a better state (as it had more edits over the years - e.g. this article you wrote up in 2009 (maybe from the Polish Wiki? The Polish wiki did go forward) - but had few intervening edits since then (so it basically sat as is - 38 edits from 2009 to date). I'm not going to press this either way (i.e. I'm for a merge, would support it, but want your input and aren't going to advance this further myself if you aren't on-board). The forced labour article isn't too large - and whatever content isn't in there - can be easily added into there without getting close to WP:SIZERULE. Icewhiz (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Ostarbeiter has a separate article. The same should be with Zivilarbeiter, with content reshuffled between Zivilarbeiter and Forced labour under German rule during World War II per WP:Summary style, similarly to sections Organisation Todt, Extermination through labour, Controversy over compensation. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Ostarbeiter is better developed and larger - however it seems much of it duplicates Forced labour under German rule during World War II. I question whether we need these separate articles - as opposed to one slave labor article (covering all the common exploitation + have sub-sections for each category imposed by the Germans). I think the quality would be better. Folding the currently small Zivilarbeiter article into forced labor would be relatively easy. Ostarbeiter will take more legwork (as it seems to have content not in the main forced labor article, some of which may also apply to Zivilarbeiters). Anyway - just a thought - Staszek Lem's suggestion also makes sense. At present some of the articles as-are are inconsistent with each other. Icewhiz (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

After reading around, I see the correct title would be something like Foreign forced civilian workforce in Nazi Germany, because from what I have been reading, Zivilarbeiter may be simply a "civil employee" of otherwise militarized establishment. example: Bekleidungswerk der Waffen-SS Dachau, Arbeitsbuch eines Zivilarbeiters, 1934-1945. , a document of a free German civilian. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

That's the literal meaning of the word (civil worker) - it is not WWII specific nor, per your check above, even specific to slave/forced labor in WWII.Icewhiz (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

That's why I am suggesting the descriptive title. Do you agree with it? If not, pease make your own suggestion. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but that descriptive title also includes Ostarbeiter - which is part of why I wanted to merge.Icewhiz (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but Ostarbeiter is a special case of "Zivilarbeiter", per Bundesarchiv series. We have WP:Summary style to handle situations like this. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)