![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Finally, as can be seen Wikipedia even after years of existance still lacks some essential articles. We need this to be expanded though-for example how Germans prevented women who worked as slave labourers from having children, or how they 'dealt' with children after there were born-- Molobo ( talk) 11:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC) For example how children were treated see here [1] -- Molobo ( talk) 12:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've made a bit of tidy up, a couple more things you could do to improve this article:
Good work, though - it's nearly there! Verisimilus T 19:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan
Dank55 (
talk)(
mistakes)
03:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
There existed underground organisation of forced workers, who spied or sabotaged. Xx236 ( talk) 08:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Some former workers haven't obtained any help (it isn't a compensation, according to German law), because they don't have documents confirming their work. Xx236 ( talk) 09:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I am putting the article nomination on hold based on the following comments. It's a very important article, so I hope these comments contribute to its value:
-- Leifern ( talk) 02:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
A number of male workers was killed because of Rassenschande crimes. The Rassenschande was used as a tool by some German women, eg. pregnant wives of German soldiers. Xx236 ( talk) 08:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
A Love in Germany text and movie describe a real case. Xx236 ( talk) 07:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Many workers were killed or sent to concentration camps, where they died or became handicapped, because of relatively small problems. One woman was killed because she poured milk on a German woman. Xx236 ( talk) 08:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Wanda Daczkowska was killed on November 27, 1942 in Breslau. p. 91 Xx236 ( talk) 07:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Arbeitsamts in Poland were considered to be slave traders. People cooperating with them were punished by underground or after the war, offices destroied. Xx236 ( talk) 09:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
According to Polish Wikipedia Arbeitsamts in Poland delivered women for German army brothels, see Sexual enslavement by Nazi Germany in World War II. Xx236 ( talk) 07:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Łowy na ludzi. Arbeitsamt w Częstochowie (1968) - the title is quite informative. Xx236 ( talk) 07:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC) [2] Xx236 ( talk) 08:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Guerilla actions: April 1, 1944 Otwock, unknown day Radom, 1943 Lublin-Tomaszów. Xx236 ( talk) 08:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I contacted the editor who was previously doing the review of this article, but never go a reply, so I am taking over the GA review. I did some preliminary copy editing, but here are some other things to fix before I can promote the article:
The article will be placed on hold, and after seven days, I will re-assess the article and decide whether it needs more work, or if I want to pass/fail it. Good luck. Nikki 311 00:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
1. The Wikipedia word is "labour". 2. Not a word about hundreds of thousands of the Soviet POWs. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 18:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The article (which is kind of a main article) is not linked enough from the other related articles. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 20:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Forced labor in Germany during World War II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Overall a good article but it needs a fair bit of work to improve. For this reason, and because I don't feel it needs a major re-write, I am placing it on hold. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 14:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Overall this article has some issues. Most important to me is the POV issue. The claims made by the reviewer above are important to the nomination and need to be resolved as well. Protonk ( talk) 04:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The review instructions give seven days to address the "on hold" concerns. I don't like sticking to that tooth and nail but it has been ~15 days since the first review. I'm going to delist this article. As always, this isn't a comment on the contributors or on the article itself. I'm sorry it wasn't promoted. Protonk ( talk) 16:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
-- Stor stark7 Speak 04:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody know of a good source detailing the experiences of young Ukrainian women (15-35), recruited for domestic service on the grounds of their supposed Germanic origin? Document 025-PS of September 4th, 1942, in the series Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression (Volume III (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1946), pp. 67-71) indicates that they were supposed to receive better treatment than the majority of slave labourers - indeed, the term is not strictly applicable to them since their recruitment appears to have been voluntary. Tyler's Boy ( talk) 16:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
what is the definition being used here? in the UK its always called slave labour, since they recieved no money as opposed to forced labour where its either a legal punishment or pay is given but they are bound to there job, i.e serfs or indentured servants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.104.87 ( talk) 07:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is really remiss in not mentioning Fritz Sauckel, who was hanged at Nuremberg as the leader of the German slave labor program (the GBA).
Second, the Arbeitseinsatz article (the A in GBA) is about exactly the same thing as this article and should be merged and redirected here. Raul654 ( talk) 04:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Here's my thought. Current title =
"Forced labor in Germany during World War II"
Proposed title =
"Forced labor under German rule during World War II"
This clarifies that camps in Eastern Europe fit within the definition. This may not be strictly necessary, but it's worth a simple page move, in my view. Thoughts? —
¾-10
23:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
It is and was legal to use enlisted POWs as laborers, per se. Not officers. America specifically used German enlisted POWs as farm laborers.
The article should make the distinction about the "impressed" labor of civilians, which was illegal and the mistreatment of all labor. But the insinuation that "forced" labor of enlisted POWs, as a single issue, should be jettisoned. It weakens the credibility of the article which is strengthened without it. Student7 ( talk) 17:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I have a friend who tends to make things up claim that she was put in a forced-labor camp in Germany when she was a teen. She was born in 1922. She was not Jewish, and I dont think that her family was from any opposing politcal party. Can anyone tell me if the German government of Hitler put German citizens in these camps? Trueethnic ( talk) 08:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I probably missed it, but DPs (as they were called) frequently had no papers and could not prove national identity. Those "trapped" in the Western Allies section of Germany had the option (which they mostly took) of being "repatriated" (not the right word!) to countries unaffected by war damage. The United States absorbed a number of these, mostly at the bottom of the pay scale for farm labor, and such. This needs to be chronicled, if it hasn't been. Student7 ( talk) 15:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
This article is exceptional because the authors appeared to completely cover the topic due to the fact that there was so much information, it also remains neutral throughout the entire editorial, not showing bias for any side and remains factual throughout the complete article. Due to the fact that the article cites many references (26) and gives a “ see also,” “further reading” and a “external links” section that points a viewer of where to go if they need more information on the specific topic, the reader automatically feels more comfortable reading the article and trusting that what it has to say is accurate. In my opinion the article is very organized with many different headings that one could use to find specific information including “controversies over compensation,” “classification,” “forced workers,” “numbers,” “extreme cases: extermination through labour” and “organization Todt” but I think that the author could have been more clear when titling the headings; for an example, the one heading is titled “classifications” but what is it classifying? It could be classifying the different classifications of forced labour or it could be classifying the different classifications of people doing the labour so the author should have been more specific in their headings to make it easier to navigate around the article. It also didn’t distinguish between what a forced laborer is compared to a slave which I would have liked to see because it mentions forced workers and slaves throughout the entire article and I could not tell if there was a difference and a general backround to WWII could have helped so it appeals more to the general public. I also found that there were some grammatical errors including “(approximately 10% of Generalgouvernement workforce)” and “slavs” which could be Slavic people or slaves but due to the other grammatical errors I was unsure. In the article I also noticed two words with small blue letters above them saying “clarification needed” which I think is actually quite good considering the amount of information already in the essay and that there is no more than just those two words with the corrections above them but I would like to see more clarification on those two topics so that there could be no blue corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smbourne ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Failed for WPPOLAND. This is almost b-class, but Organisation Todt section needs better references. If this is fixed, this may be B/GA class. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
'However, in the case of Russians and Ukrainians, returning often meant suspicion, prison, or death.' This statement in the lede is not expanded-on in the main article, and not explained. Can you elucidate? Valetude ( talk) 09:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
"Soviet prisoners of war, however, were treated with utter brutality as Nazis did not consider them subject to protection under the Geneva Conventions, which had not been ratified nor implemented by the Soviet Union."
This comes across as whitewashing as Germany was still bound by the Geneva convention in its treatment of Soviet POWs - see Geneva Convention (1929) - Execution of the convention. The reasons for mistreatment were ideological rather than legal.
I would like to modify this section to reflect the above. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Forced labour under German rule during World War II. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
It would be good to have an image that is high enough resolution to see in preview and actually shows people performing forced labor. Since my suggestion (right) was vetoed, perhaps you have a better idea? b uidh e 00:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken has reverted my removal of three images of insignia from the article. I think these clearly fail MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE because they are not integrated into the article text as a whole - the different terms such as "OST-Arbeiter" are not even used elsewhere in the article. Even if they were, it is unclear why images of insignia should be particularly helpful to the reader per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — Brigade Piron ( talk) 09:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Finally, as can be seen Wikipedia even after years of existance still lacks some essential articles. We need this to be expanded though-for example how Germans prevented women who worked as slave labourers from having children, or how they 'dealt' with children after there were born-- Molobo ( talk) 11:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC) For example how children were treated see here [1] -- Molobo ( talk) 12:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I've made a bit of tidy up, a couple more things you could do to improve this article:
Good work, though - it's nearly there! Verisimilus T 19:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan
Dank55 (
talk)(
mistakes)
03:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
There existed underground organisation of forced workers, who spied or sabotaged. Xx236 ( talk) 08:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Some former workers haven't obtained any help (it isn't a compensation, according to German law), because they don't have documents confirming their work. Xx236 ( talk) 09:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I am putting the article nomination on hold based on the following comments. It's a very important article, so I hope these comments contribute to its value:
-- Leifern ( talk) 02:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
A number of male workers was killed because of Rassenschande crimes. The Rassenschande was used as a tool by some German women, eg. pregnant wives of German soldiers. Xx236 ( talk) 08:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
A Love in Germany text and movie describe a real case. Xx236 ( talk) 07:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Many workers were killed or sent to concentration camps, where they died or became handicapped, because of relatively small problems. One woman was killed because she poured milk on a German woman. Xx236 ( talk) 08:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Wanda Daczkowska was killed on November 27, 1942 in Breslau. p. 91 Xx236 ( talk) 07:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Arbeitsamts in Poland were considered to be slave traders. People cooperating with them were punished by underground or after the war, offices destroied. Xx236 ( talk) 09:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
According to Polish Wikipedia Arbeitsamts in Poland delivered women for German army brothels, see Sexual enslavement by Nazi Germany in World War II. Xx236 ( talk) 07:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Łowy na ludzi. Arbeitsamt w Częstochowie (1968) - the title is quite informative. Xx236 ( talk) 07:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC) [2] Xx236 ( talk) 08:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Guerilla actions: April 1, 1944 Otwock, unknown day Radom, 1943 Lublin-Tomaszów. Xx236 ( talk) 08:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I contacted the editor who was previously doing the review of this article, but never go a reply, so I am taking over the GA review. I did some preliminary copy editing, but here are some other things to fix before I can promote the article:
The article will be placed on hold, and after seven days, I will re-assess the article and decide whether it needs more work, or if I want to pass/fail it. Good luck. Nikki 311 00:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
1. The Wikipedia word is "labour". 2. Not a word about hundreds of thousands of the Soviet POWs. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 18:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The article (which is kind of a main article) is not linked enough from the other related articles. -- Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog ( talk) 20:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Forced labor in Germany during World War II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Overall a good article but it needs a fair bit of work to improve. For this reason, and because I don't feel it needs a major re-write, I am placing it on hold. Parrot of Doom ( talk) 14:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Overall this article has some issues. Most important to me is the POV issue. The claims made by the reviewer above are important to the nomination and need to be resolved as well. Protonk ( talk) 04:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The review instructions give seven days to address the "on hold" concerns. I don't like sticking to that tooth and nail but it has been ~15 days since the first review. I'm going to delist this article. As always, this isn't a comment on the contributors or on the article itself. I'm sorry it wasn't promoted. Protonk ( talk) 16:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
-- Stor stark7 Speak 04:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody know of a good source detailing the experiences of young Ukrainian women (15-35), recruited for domestic service on the grounds of their supposed Germanic origin? Document 025-PS of September 4th, 1942, in the series Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression (Volume III (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1946), pp. 67-71) indicates that they were supposed to receive better treatment than the majority of slave labourers - indeed, the term is not strictly applicable to them since their recruitment appears to have been voluntary. Tyler's Boy ( talk) 16:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
what is the definition being used here? in the UK its always called slave labour, since they recieved no money as opposed to forced labour where its either a legal punishment or pay is given but they are bound to there job, i.e serfs or indentured servants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.104.87 ( talk) 07:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is really remiss in not mentioning Fritz Sauckel, who was hanged at Nuremberg as the leader of the German slave labor program (the GBA).
Second, the Arbeitseinsatz article (the A in GBA) is about exactly the same thing as this article and should be merged and redirected here. Raul654 ( talk) 04:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Here's my thought. Current title =
"Forced labor in Germany during World War II"
Proposed title =
"Forced labor under German rule during World War II"
This clarifies that camps in Eastern Europe fit within the definition. This may not be strictly necessary, but it's worth a simple page move, in my view. Thoughts? —
¾-10
23:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
It is and was legal to use enlisted POWs as laborers, per se. Not officers. America specifically used German enlisted POWs as farm laborers.
The article should make the distinction about the "impressed" labor of civilians, which was illegal and the mistreatment of all labor. But the insinuation that "forced" labor of enlisted POWs, as a single issue, should be jettisoned. It weakens the credibility of the article which is strengthened without it. Student7 ( talk) 17:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I have a friend who tends to make things up claim that she was put in a forced-labor camp in Germany when she was a teen. She was born in 1922. She was not Jewish, and I dont think that her family was from any opposing politcal party. Can anyone tell me if the German government of Hitler put German citizens in these camps? Trueethnic ( talk) 08:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I probably missed it, but DPs (as they were called) frequently had no papers and could not prove national identity. Those "trapped" in the Western Allies section of Germany had the option (which they mostly took) of being "repatriated" (not the right word!) to countries unaffected by war damage. The United States absorbed a number of these, mostly at the bottom of the pay scale for farm labor, and such. This needs to be chronicled, if it hasn't been. Student7 ( talk) 15:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
This article is exceptional because the authors appeared to completely cover the topic due to the fact that there was so much information, it also remains neutral throughout the entire editorial, not showing bias for any side and remains factual throughout the complete article. Due to the fact that the article cites many references (26) and gives a “ see also,” “further reading” and a “external links” section that points a viewer of where to go if they need more information on the specific topic, the reader automatically feels more comfortable reading the article and trusting that what it has to say is accurate. In my opinion the article is very organized with many different headings that one could use to find specific information including “controversies over compensation,” “classification,” “forced workers,” “numbers,” “extreme cases: extermination through labour” and “organization Todt” but I think that the author could have been more clear when titling the headings; for an example, the one heading is titled “classifications” but what is it classifying? It could be classifying the different classifications of forced labour or it could be classifying the different classifications of people doing the labour so the author should have been more specific in their headings to make it easier to navigate around the article. It also didn’t distinguish between what a forced laborer is compared to a slave which I would have liked to see because it mentions forced workers and slaves throughout the entire article and I could not tell if there was a difference and a general backround to WWII could have helped so it appeals more to the general public. I also found that there were some grammatical errors including “(approximately 10% of Generalgouvernement workforce)” and “slavs” which could be Slavic people or slaves but due to the other grammatical errors I was unsure. In the article I also noticed two words with small blue letters above them saying “clarification needed” which I think is actually quite good considering the amount of information already in the essay and that there is no more than just those two words with the corrections above them but I would like to see more clarification on those two topics so that there could be no blue corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smbourne ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Failed for WPPOLAND. This is almost b-class, but Organisation Todt section needs better references. If this is fixed, this may be B/GA class. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
'However, in the case of Russians and Ukrainians, returning often meant suspicion, prison, or death.' This statement in the lede is not expanded-on in the main article, and not explained. Can you elucidate? Valetude ( talk) 09:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
"Soviet prisoners of war, however, were treated with utter brutality as Nazis did not consider them subject to protection under the Geneva Conventions, which had not been ratified nor implemented by the Soviet Union."
This comes across as whitewashing as Germany was still bound by the Geneva convention in its treatment of Soviet POWs - see Geneva Convention (1929) - Execution of the convention. The reasons for mistreatment were ideological rather than legal.
I would like to modify this section to reflect the above. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Forced labour under German rule during World War II. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
It would be good to have an image that is high enough resolution to see in preview and actually shows people performing forced labor. Since my suggestion (right) was vetoed, perhaps you have a better idea? b uidh e 00:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Beyond My Ken has reverted my removal of three images of insignia from the article. I think these clearly fail MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE because they are not integrated into the article text as a whole - the different terms such as "OST-Arbeiter" are not even used elsewhere in the article. Even if they were, it is unclear why images of insignia should be particularly helpful to the reader per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — Brigade Piron ( talk) 09:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)