![]() | 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 |
Dabljuh, "About 1.700.000 human beings were murdered, most of them Jews" expresses essential facts about the killing. Operation Reinhard was directed against Jews specifically, and while not every person killed was Jewish, most were. So this is an important factual detail to include in the first paragraph.
I believe you are reading meaning into the phrase which is not there. It does not have connotations many people about the morality of the act; it simply denotes an essential fact.
I'm restoring the post-comma phrase, but leaving "human beings" as "people," which I think both sounds more objectively factual, and may alleviate your concern about the connotations of the sentence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieMcCarthy ( talk • contribs) 13:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
During the operation, about 1.700.000 human beings were murdered, most of them Jews.
The Nazis had decided to undertake the European-wide Final Solution to the Jewish Question in January 1942 during a secret meeting of German leaders
As far as I have heard, and I think the reference articled claims the same, the Wannsee conference was not about deciding to do it, but rather a meeting on how to organize it. -- Frosheekeksi ( talk) 19:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
====Zyclon-B Re: the last edits. I removed Zykonb B reference. The change of the number of victims comes from the Hoefle telegram and the info about the deportations in Arad's book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.12.4 ( talk • contribs) 10:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
[I find this confusing? Was Operation Reinhard the assassination plot? Or was it the death camps? Or something else?] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.12.4 ( talk • contribs) 10:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I hope it is more clear now.
-- Korpo
I am not happy with Korpo's conclusion: utilising gas for killing people to abstract the act of killing, goes for the Euthanasia programm (T-4) as well. But that already was done over two years before "Operation Reinhardt". T-4 was clearly the prototype for "Reinhardt", they developed the technology of stationary gas chambers by using carbonmonoxide gas from industrial pressure bottles, they transfered almost all of their male personnell including all commanders to the Reinhardt camps, for economic and transport reasons they adapted their killing method to the situation in the East by choosing petrol (not Diesel) engines of big lorries or tanks to generate the CO gas. If that is so (any scholar known who would object?), are we really entitled to talk about "Aktion Reinhardt" as "the start of an industrialized mass murder formerly not known to mankind"? P. Witte 16:52, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that petrol engines were used for the gassings? I thought the Russian tank engines (used for stationary gas chambers) and gas vans only used diesel as stated by the witnesses and in other transcribed documents that I have seen referred to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.122.255.249 ( talk • contribs) 06:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Another little problem. The description of what was the source of the CO in the gas chambers is not clear. Was it bottled CO manufactured elsewhere and pumped in, or was it directly from the exhaust of a stationary diesel engine on a static platform (as it appears to be decribed by Gerstein's account). The description on the page misses these details entirely. Also is the name Reinhard or Reinhardt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.122.255.62 ( talk • contribs) 06:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Where and when did operation Reinhard use Zyklon B? I do not believe it. Can somebody please provide references within in a week. Otherwise I will remove it. Andries 10:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The former version of this article was rank with casual discourse and misplaced information. Therefore, I have redone most of the text. Someone should go over the information and make sure that nothing important is missing, as I removed a lot of things that just didn't make sense. - Barfooz 08:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
(today's value: around 700,000,000 USD or 350,000,000 Euro) This just doesnt add up
Not a single citation - only one link ( to a report that seems either unavailable or untranslated, but there was a review of it - totally empty of content ).
159.105.80.141 13:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The more I look the less I find. The Kaufmann report, thene Hoefle Report, etc all talk about rounding up Jews at best or trnaportation numbers - no smoking gun here. Is there some documentation on Operation Rienhard - it appears most people reading this are required to take a large leap of faith if they want to get into the spirit of the story. The opening sentence of the article says it all - starts with the required acceptance of the idea of code words ( that means no evidence that their even was a nefariuos Operation Reinhard ). Something this central to the holocaust must - has to - have more documentation than this.
159.105.80.141
18:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The description of Heydrich's assassins as "Czech underground resistance" people is not quite correct. The assassins were Czech agents trained by the British SOE and infiltrated by them to kill Heydrich. The operation came from outside Czechoslovakia rather than planned inside. The local resistance, when contacted by the agents, tried to dissuade them from the action. Also I wish the "Reinhardt/Reinhard" thing could be settled. I have seen scans of original German documents on the Web, which call it "Reinhardt." If this is the correct spelling, and it seems to be, all Wiki references should be standardized as "Reinhardt." Shirokuma1 05:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The use of the term 'euthanasia killing centres' hardly seems appropriate? Maxplanar ( talk) 18:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
"Approximately 178,045,960 German Reichsmark worth of Jewish property (today's value: around 700,000,000 USD or 550,000,000 euro) was stolen."
The wording on this sentence needs to be changed. For the taking of property to qualify as stealing, the act must be illegal. It's a sad fact that the taking of the property as well as the murders were sanctioned by the goverment. Because the property was taken legally, "stolen" should be replaced with a different world like "confiscated". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.173.116 ( talk) 22:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The exchange rate has fluctuated so much between Euros and Dollars to approximate confiscated property estimates that it warrants changing. That cannot be right, but I don't know which takes primacy in adjusting it, because I don't know the original rates, and exchange ratios. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.195.90 ( talk) 14:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Any attempts to relate currency values in different periods - even within the same currency - can only be very, very approximate, and there are a range of different methods which come up with widely differing results. I think the best you can manage here is "roughly 500 million to 1 billion dollars in 2009 equivalent". And in any case, the original figure can only be very approximate as well.(Don't confuse the issue even further by bringing in yet another currency, the euro.) 78.147.28.242 ( talk) 09:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Look at categories Category:Operation Reinhard belongs to. I think we need a category for German operations that were targeting civilian populations (Jewish and otherwise), not military. What do you think? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
This subject is NOT military - no military was involved in it. In fact, the entire article (except for subsection "Alternative Definition") is incorrect. There is no authentic documentation (not even the Höfle Telegram uses the name "Reinhard") for the content of this article.-- Joe ( talk) 15:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The link to Yad Vashem as a source lacks qualification or standing. The linked-to article, while its content agrees with much in the Wikipedia article, itself contains no further references to actual sources such as original documentation (I've seen nothing at all of this sort, anywhere on this subject) nor even to eyewitness or perpetrator testimony. Perpetrator testimony (Höss's) I've seen differs so much from the definition now shown that I would call it contradictory (see "Alternative Definition" in the article.
The article at German Wikipedia acknowledges a popular perception that the name is related to Reinhard Heydrich, but concludes (with citation) that the name originally came from that of Fritz Reinhardt. This goes a long way toward explaining the variations in spelling-- Joe ( talk) 16:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Let's have a consensus on the most appropriate image for this article.
I personally think a contemporary image should be the first choice, after looking through Wiki Commons I have noted it's hard to find a suitable i.e. perfect image. The Holocaust is well documented but there does not appear to be an image showing deportations to these deaths camps during this period.
The next best choice is therefore a latter day image of a site. There have been several changes in recent months, but I don' think any have been satisfactory. Currently the new image shows a memorial at Treblinka, before that was an image of the road/sluice that led to Sobibor, and before that an incorrect image referencing Chelmo.
I personally would like to see an image of a site or a relic in situ (like a railway sign), rather than a memorial as that reflects on interpretation rather than the actuality of the crime. It may sound odd but something that was there at the time of mass killings, although an inanimate object, bore witness to those horrible events.
A picture of a memorial is an image of remembrance that came after the fact. What do other editors think regarding this point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.70.112 ( talk) 23:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I object to the line "...creation of camps that had only one purpose: to kill thousands of people quickly and efficiently." The article on the Holocaust says that clothes were confiscated, soap and towels given to the victims, and gold teeth removed after they were massacred. This suggest that these camps has at least two other purposes, in addition to the one above: raising of money and prevention of riots and unrest. I hope that most people can understand that my changes to the article are tasteful. -- Acewolf359 ( talk) 17:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Utterly bogus, and smells a bit like Holocaust denial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.67.92 ( talk) 21:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I realize that "Endlösung der Judenfrage" is commonly translated as, "the Final Solution," but this omits "der Judenfrage" so that the literal translation should be, "Final Solution of the Jewish Question," including the German capitalization of both nouns. Dick Kimball ( talk) 18:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Even with quick a read I notice that the meaning of some parts have been skewed through omission. Where is the mention of Reserve Police Battalion 101, Globocnik made this SS unit responsible for sending the Jews to the death camps. Or that confiscated valuable were eventually sent to the Reichbank. And probably the most egregious omission is that the death camps were developed sequentially culminating in Treblinka. The Nazis used stepped development of each site they were not all built to the same configuration.
If you're going to rewrite stuff at least know more about the topic than is already in the article. Furthermore, my toes curl when I read:
Where did you get this from, watching Escape from Sobibor? From what I have read, as soon as the victims entered the killing area they were ordered to disrobe by threats of violence. Dogs were set upon the tardy, while whips and clubs were used to frighten the others.
Overall this is not an improvement but a rewrite of personal feelings. Good for a school essay but as an encyclopaedic entry, nope, not by a long way. 86.182.42.124 ( talk) 12:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC) from Chester, United Kingdom
I came to this page because it had a cs1 template that used a now-deprecated parameter. I fixed that and noticed a variety of misused cs1 parameters:
|format=
identifies the electronic file format of the file pointed to by |url=
. These are all a misuse of the parameter:
|format=PDF file, direct download 4.7 MB
|format=Google Books preview
|format=[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/stutthof.html Introduction]
|publisher=
is used to identify the publisher of the work being cited. Here the parameter contains an external link unrelated to the publisher. Values assigned to this parameter are made part of the citation's metadata. When the parameter value has information unrelated to the purpose of the parameter, the metadata are corrupted.
|publisher=Foreign Languages Publishing House [http://dl.dropbox.com/u/47875651/TheHellOfTreblinka.html (online version)]
|quote=
is used to quote relevant text from the source
|quote=''original in Russian:'' Гроссман В.С., [http://lib.ru/PROZA/GROSSMAN/trebl.txt ''Повести, рассказы, очерки''] [Stories, Journalism, and Essays], Воениздат 1958.
–|authorn=
is used to identify the nth author of the cited source. Here it is used to identify a location. The value assigned to any |authorn=
, |lastn=
, |firstn=
, |authors=
and |vauthors=
becomes part of the citation's metadata so including non-author information in an 'author' parameter corrupts the metadata:
|author3=at Düsseldorf
|authorlinkn=
links authorn in the author name list to an article about that author. This parameter was used to link |author3=at Düsseldorf
which created a link like this:
at Düsseldorf. A reader clicking on that link would expect to land on a Düsseldorf page not on
Treblinka trials
|authorlink3=Treblinka trials
So I fixed a bunch of that, mostly by deletion. Editor Poeticbent reverted me but then simply misuses different parameters:
|id=
– content of this parameter is to be used to uniquely identify the source
|id=Document size 4.7 MB
|id=[[Treblinka trials]], Düsseldorf
|id=Internet Archive
|language=
is used to identify the language of the source and is used to add the article to an appropriate category
|language=translation from [http://lib.ru/PROZA/GROSSMAN/trebl.txt Гроссман В.С., "Треблинский ад"]
|medium=
is an alias of |type=
. This parameter is to be used to additional information about the work's media type
|medium=[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/stutthof.html Introduction]
It appears to me that editors of this article are attempting to squeeze too much information into the cs1 templates. The templates are designed to identify a single source that supports certain article text. Editor Poeticbent's revert of my edit should be reverted and the necessary information (Amazon inside view, Google books preview are examples of things that are not necessary) made into separate citations or footnotes. Descriptive text does not belong in the template itself but can be added to the reference between the close of the template and the close of the reference: {{cite ... |...}} descriptive text goes here. </ref>
—
Trappist the monk (
talk)
12:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
|via=
may be appropriate for Google books and internet archive. '
Treblinka trials, Düsseldorf' is not a unique identifier; 'Internet Archive' is not a unique identifier; 'Google Books' is not a unique identifier; 'Amazon Look Inside' is not a unique identifier. Links in the citation are to help a reader locate the source used to validate article text, the Treblinka trials link is not such a link; a useful link would be a link to a translation of the Ząbecki source.|id=Google books preview
, none of the links that I clicked led to previews. Unless the link actually goes to a preview and the reader can read the material that supports the article text there, such links are essentially useless.|via=Google Books
suggestion instead of the |id=Google Books
to be used, but please do not lecture me in that superior tone. Citation templates make Wikipedia look good and that's why I use them, not because I have to; URLs placed in square brackets are perfectly acceptable forms of external link syntax also. BTW, all of the citations with |id=Google books preview
in this article work just fine at my location as previews. I'm sorry to hear your location prevents you from reading books online as I do; besides, I don't even know what it is that you see onscreen, but that's OK. I don't need to,
Poeticbent
talk
20:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)|via=Google books preview
in a citation sets a reader's expectation that a preview of the book is available. When that expectation is not realized for whatever reason, readers are disappointed because we led to them to believe that a preview is available. It is better I think to provide an ISBN which the cs1|2 templates automatically link to
Special:BookSources from which point readers have a variety of ways to find the book. Special:BookSources includes Google books so the direct link in |url=
is not really necessary.URLs placed in square brackets are perfectly acceptable forms of external link syntax; I have not said otherwise.
|id=
, |language=
and |medium=
are still being misused. This single citation template should be at least three templates:
{{Citation |ref=harv |last=Grossman |first=Vasily |authorlink=Vasily Grossman |orig-year=1946 |year=1958 |title=The Treblinka Hell |language=translation from [http://lib.ru/PROZA/GROSSMAN/trebl.txt Гроссман В.С., "Треблинский ад"] |url=http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/essays/grossmantreblinka46.pdf |publisher=Foreign Languages Publishing House (Воениздат) |medium=[http://dl.dropbox.com/u/47875651/TheHellOfTreblinka.html cross-check] |publication-place=Moscow |chapter=Повести, рассказы, очерки |trans-chapter=Stories, Journalism, and Essays |format=PDF |id=document size 2.14 MB |accessdate=5 October 2014 }}
|title=The Treblinka Hell
is linked with the content from |url=http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/essays/grossmantreblinka46.pdf
. Following that
link gives us a title page. From the title page we get author, title, publisher, location, and publication date. We can also get page numbers from the pdf. On the second page of the pdf is "The Treblinka Hell". This, presumably, is the chapter. But in the original citation, we have |chapter=Повести, рассказы, очерки
and its mate |trans-chapter=Stories, Journalism, and Essays
. Neither are found in the pdf so their provenance is unknown. Clearly they do not belong with the pdf. So, here is a complete template:
{{cite book |last=Grossman |first=Vasily |authorlink=Vasily Grossman |chapter=The Treblinka Hell |title=The Years of War (1941–1945) |chapter-url=http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/essays/grossmantreblinka46.pdf |location=Moscow |publisher=Foreign Languages Publishing House |date=1946 |pages=371–408}}
|medium=
contains a link to a different
document. From this we can get author, title, chapter, and translators.
{{cite book |last=Grossman |first=Vasily Semyonovich |chapter=The Hell of Treblinka |title=The Road: Stories, Journalism, and Essays |chapter-url=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/47875651/TheHellOfTreblinka.html |others=V. Grossman, R. Chandler, E. Chandler, O. Mukovnikova (trans.) |access-date=1 August 2015}}
|language=
contains link to a another different
document, this one in Russian. From it, with the assistance of Google translate, we get author, title, date (19 сентября 2002 (апрель-май) → September 19, 2002 (April-May); not very clear what that means), original publisher and publication date(?).
{{cite web |last=Grossman |first=Vasily |script-title=ru:Треблинский ад |trans-title=Treblinka Hell |url=http://lib.ru/PROZA/GROSSMAN/trebl.txt |date=19 September 2002 |orig-year=1958 |language=ru}}
{{
sfn}}
template linking to one as is done in the article with the Arad, Shirer, and Smith references, would not go amiss. The other two could be at a second level of indentation:
citation
template in the same inline <ref></ref> setup even though it makes perfect sense the way you put it.
Poeticbent
talk
14:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)|quote=
parameter automatically adds quotation marks to everything ... with no room for maneuver, including supplementary data such as names of individuals quoted, footnotes, translations; or, where exactly the quoted text originates from. There's nothing that can be done about those forced results. Over time, I got accustomed to supplementing different parameters if necessary to produce a desired outcome. It was OK before the so-called "error tracking" came into effect; now it's not. Words within templates can no longer be taken at face value because they have become code-words.
Poeticbent
talk
14:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)|quote=
since it was first added to {{
cite book}}
in February 2006. The purpose of |quote=
is to render a brief quotation from the referenced source. The location of the quoted text is identified by the content of |page=
, |pages=
, or |at=
. It has been ever thus.full stops appear and disappear at random ... but only in preview? That behavior has not been reported before but, if it exists, an attempt should be made to fix the underlying cause.
|id=Document size 2.14 MB
and similar is still a misuse of |id=
as is |quote=With archival photos.
and similar.{{cite ... |...}} descriptive text goes here. </ref>
|id=Document size 4.7 MB
|id=Document size 33.1 KB
|id=Document size 2.14 MB
|id=Document size 7.89 MB
|id=Document size 7.91 MB complete
|id=document size 20.2 MB
|id=[[Treblinka trials]], Düsseldorf
|id=Document size 23.9 KB
|id=document size 20.2 MB
|id=Complete
|quote=
:
|quote=With archival photos.
|quote=Made available at the Mapping Treblinka webpage by ARC.
|quote=Testimony of ''SS Scharführer'' Erich Fuchs in the Sobibór-Bolender trial, Düsseldorf.
|quote=with list of Catholic [[Polish Righteous among the Nations|rescuers of Jews]] escaping Treblinka, selected testimonies, bibliography, alphabetical indexes, photographs, English language summaries, and forewords by Holocaust scholars.
|quote=English language summaries, and forewords by Holocaust scholars.
|quote=''Source:'' "Atlas of the Holocaust" by Martin Gilbert (1982).
|quote=''See Smith's book excerpts at:'' [http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/survivor/sperling.html Hershl Sperling: Personal Testimony] by David Adams, and the book summary at [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1302964/Last-victim-Treblinka-He-survived-SEVEN-Nazi-concentration-camps--nightmare-caught-him.html Last victim of Treblinka] by Tony Rennell.
|archive-url=
and |archive-date=
|quote=''Also:'' [http://www.webcitation.org/6GIJ2XpOy PDF cache archived by WebCite.]
|asin=
and |asin-td=
, use them to replace these parameters
|id=Amazon Look inside
|id= {{ASIN|0253213053|country=uk}}
|id=also at [http://www.amazon.ca/The-Rise-Fall-Third-Reich/dp/1451651686#reader_1451651686 Amazon: Search inside]
|id=Document
, others with the lower case "d" i.e. |id=document
. The reason is only because full stops appear and disappear in the templates without rhyme or reason.
Poeticbent
talk
17:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC){{
cite book}}
, {{
cite web}}
, {{
cite journal}}
, etc. while cs2 has only one template, {{
citation}}
. cs1 and cs2 differ in how they render the citation. cs1 uses full stops between citation elements (author name list, title, chapter, date, etc) and terminates the citation with a full stop. In contrast, cs2 uses commas between elements and does not have terminal puctuation:
{{cite book |title=A cs1 template using cite book |author=Author |chapter=Chapter |date=2 August 2015}}
{{citation |title=A cs2 template using citation |author=Author |chapter=Chapter |date=2 August 2015}}
|access-date=
, that text is capitalized in cs1 because the text begins a sentence. For cs2, the text is not capitalized because the whole citation is treated as a single sentence.@
Trappist the monk: Any reason why Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2 templates do not produce consistent results? Your guess is as good as mine. – Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. The only way to make the outcome look uniform is to make the templates work together!
But, going back to
|quote=
, I'm not sure I made myself clear. When a book is written by a historian quoting a number of historical sources worth reproducing, the description of those sources should not be forced inside the quotation marks. The template parameter leaves no room for maneuver and creates an automatic error instead. Here's but a tiny example of what I mean from our article
The Holocaust (there are tons of them everywhere):
Those who offer explicit or implicit arguments for including them among the victims of the Holocaust, such as Bohdan Wytwycky in The Other Holocaust and Christian Streit and Jürgen Forster in The Policies of Genocide, point out that the appallingly high losses among Soviet prisoners of war were racially determined. The Germans did not usually mistreat prisoners from other Allied countries, but in the Nazi view Soviet prisoners were Slavic "subhumans" who had no right to live.[this is the end of the direct quotation lacking the closing quotation mark; following text is not a part of the actual quotation]Those who would include Polish and Soviet civilian losses in the Holocaust include Bohdan Wytwycky in The Other Holocaust, Richard C. Lukas in The Forgotten Holocaust: The Poles Under German Rule, 1939–1944, and Ihor Kamenetsky in Secret Nazi Plans for Eastern Europe.
{{
cite book}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)|mode=cs1
which makes {{
citation}}
templates render as if they were cs1 templates, and similarly |mode=cs2
which makes cs1 templates render as if they were {{citation}}
. Using my examples from before, this time with |mode=
:
|quote=
should only be used judiciously. When a citation contains a quote, that citation can only be used to support that one point. For example, a single page in a source can be used to support multiple statements in a Wikipedia article. That same page might describe the 'pro' side of an issue as well as the 'con' side of the issue. If the Wikipedia citation quotes one side, that same citation cannot be used as a reference for the other side. Similarly, when it is beneficial to quote some material and also include editorial comment about that quote, much like your example, |quote=
is not up to the task.{{reflist|group="N"}}
.
[N 1]References
References
{{
cite book}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on
Operation Reinhard. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
If Operation Reinhard controlled the three camps of Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, why are the other 3 camps listed as "additional" camps in the infobox? (could be read as "additionally part of Operation Reinhard") And why is Majdanek present in the table of camp commandants? (Majdanek is especially confusing, as it was located within the General Government) This creates an ambiguity about what is meant by "extermination camps of Operation Reinhard". Some clarity would be nice. Uglemat ( talk) 15:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
To Poeticbent and Beyond My Ken. The Nazi holocaust is not my area of expertise, but I'm soon done reading the book by Raul Hilberg. You seem quite defensive about the prisoners issue, and I feel that what you are trying to do is to keep denialists at bay. In my opinion, half-truths will not do. They will only encourage denialist who will be more prone to believe that they have "uncovered" something if they discover low-hanging fruit. That is one of the reasons why I tried to remove the sentence "took no prisoners", because that was not the impression I got after reading Hilberg, and I couldn't bear leaving the sentence like that when I felt it was false. I certainly agree that the sole purpose of keeping prisoners in Sobibor/Treblinka/Belzec was for the running of the destructive machinery of death. But there were prisoners, and I don't think they solely dealt with corpse disposal (altough this was obviously their most important duty). The existence of a few hundred prisoners in camps where hundreds of thousands vanished hardly raises questions about the fate of the arrivals. The arithmetic makes things plain.
This is how Hilberg described the purpose of Treblinka prisoners: "Unlike Auschwitz, which had a very large inmate population, Treblinka kept only a few work parties (all Jews) for maintenance and other purposes" (p. 981; my emphasis. According to the index, he is describing the death camp, not Treblinka I). Now that I have been searching frantically for the preceeding quote, I realize that part of the reason for my feeling "no prisoners" is so wrong may have been influenced by my lack of mental distinction between the death camps and the labor camps with identical names (Treblinka I, Belzec labor camp).
In Treblinka, 150-200 of the 700 inmates managed to escape in a breakout on 2 August 1943, of which perhaps 60-70 survived the ensuing pursuit. In Sobibor, 300 inmates revolted on 14 October 1943, of which 40–50 lived by the end of the war. (Both events in Hilberg, pp. 981–982.)
Anyways, be assured that my intentions are pure! Uglemat ( talk) 21:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Some of the most notorious slave labour camps included Mauthausen, Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, Gross-Rosen (with 100 subcamps),[7] Ravensbrück (70 subcamps),[8] and Auschwitz (with 44 subcamps eventually),[9] among other places.[9][10]— There were NO forced labour facilities of this kind at any of the Reinhard camps. That is what we mean by saying that
Operation Reinhard took no prisoners.We can add to it the camp duties also. Notably, the cleaning and kitchen duties were assigned to women who did NOT come from the death trains. The revised line could read:
Operation Reinhard took no prisoners, except as a means of furthering the camps' sole purpose of methodical extermination of Jews.What do you think? Poeticbent talk 22:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Operation Reinhard. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
As indicated in the subject, I want to ask the reason i.e. of the recent unexplained revert, since it is quite odd what's happening. Austria was annexed by Germany in 1938, so after it there is no reason to claim "including Austria", it is evident, but we may link Germany in this way so there would be no confusion. Moreover, the former Austria inside Germany that time did not exist, so such reference is imprecise and fallacious, as I referred to it as well in the edit log, so once more it is inunderstandable what's the problem wih the linking of Ostmark (Austria) that may save the incoherent situation. If not any wise consensus with this is possible, then the content of the bracket should be deleted, since it is enough then "The new network of Nazi concentration camps built by SS in Germany, Poland, and elsewhere in Europe..." etc.( KIENGIR ( talk) 20:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC))
The new network of [[Nazi concentration camps]] built by [[SS]] in Germany (including Austria), Poland, and elsewhere in Europe began exploiting foreign captives in war industry.
Poeticbent
talk
15:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)There was no Polish railway system under German occupation. The phrase is linked to the Polish State Railways, which were stolen by the Germans, and in the GG renamed the Ostbahn. Xx236 ( talk) 09:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/study-reveals-the-nazis-murdered-1-47-million-jews-in-100-days-during-1942/?fbclid=IwAR3wD5RXT6iEiwsiHblw9MrvypdF29YZMiiXeB7oT9UBqDrCoZT5qjG3v7c Xx236 ( talk) 10:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Der Kern des Holocaust. Bełżec, Sobibór, Treblinka und die Aktion Reinhardt. C.H. Beck, München 2017. 207 S. ISBN 978-3-406-70702-5. Xx236 ( talk) 06:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "exploration of the history of concentration camps seems off-topic". -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The term "Jewish Poles" in the lead strikes me as somewhat misleading, considering Poles and Jews are typically considered to be two separate ethnic groups, and the Nazis especially made this a very clear distinction; I propose that the wording be changed to "Polish Jews". Rootless Cosmopolitan ( talk) 23:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
"Trebinka" should be "Treblinka" (can't fix it, since the page is protected) WorldAsWill ( talk) 21:02, 1 October 2021 (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 |
Dabljuh, "About 1.700.000 human beings were murdered, most of them Jews" expresses essential facts about the killing. Operation Reinhard was directed against Jews specifically, and while not every person killed was Jewish, most were. So this is an important factual detail to include in the first paragraph.
I believe you are reading meaning into the phrase which is not there. It does not have connotations many people about the morality of the act; it simply denotes an essential fact.
I'm restoring the post-comma phrase, but leaving "human beings" as "people," which I think both sounds more objectively factual, and may alleviate your concern about the connotations of the sentence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieMcCarthy ( talk • contribs) 13:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
During the operation, about 1.700.000 human beings were murdered, most of them Jews.
The Nazis had decided to undertake the European-wide Final Solution to the Jewish Question in January 1942 during a secret meeting of German leaders
As far as I have heard, and I think the reference articled claims the same, the Wannsee conference was not about deciding to do it, but rather a meeting on how to organize it. -- Frosheekeksi ( talk) 19:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
====Zyclon-B Re: the last edits. I removed Zykonb B reference. The change of the number of victims comes from the Hoefle telegram and the info about the deportations in Arad's book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.12.4 ( talk • contribs) 10:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
[I find this confusing? Was Operation Reinhard the assassination plot? Or was it the death camps? Or something else?] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.12.4 ( talk • contribs) 10:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
I hope it is more clear now.
-- Korpo
I am not happy with Korpo's conclusion: utilising gas for killing people to abstract the act of killing, goes for the Euthanasia programm (T-4) as well. But that already was done over two years before "Operation Reinhardt". T-4 was clearly the prototype for "Reinhardt", they developed the technology of stationary gas chambers by using carbonmonoxide gas from industrial pressure bottles, they transfered almost all of their male personnell including all commanders to the Reinhardt camps, for economic and transport reasons they adapted their killing method to the situation in the East by choosing petrol (not Diesel) engines of big lorries or tanks to generate the CO gas. If that is so (any scholar known who would object?), are we really entitled to talk about "Aktion Reinhardt" as "the start of an industrialized mass murder formerly not known to mankind"? P. Witte 16:52, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that petrol engines were used for the gassings? I thought the Russian tank engines (used for stationary gas chambers) and gas vans only used diesel as stated by the witnesses and in other transcribed documents that I have seen referred to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.122.255.249 ( talk • contribs) 06:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Another little problem. The description of what was the source of the CO in the gas chambers is not clear. Was it bottled CO manufactured elsewhere and pumped in, or was it directly from the exhaust of a stationary diesel engine on a static platform (as it appears to be decribed by Gerstein's account). The description on the page misses these details entirely. Also is the name Reinhard or Reinhardt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.122.255.62 ( talk • contribs) 06:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Where and when did operation Reinhard use Zyklon B? I do not believe it. Can somebody please provide references within in a week. Otherwise I will remove it. Andries 10:32, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The former version of this article was rank with casual discourse and misplaced information. Therefore, I have redone most of the text. Someone should go over the information and make sure that nothing important is missing, as I removed a lot of things that just didn't make sense. - Barfooz 08:29, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
(today's value: around 700,000,000 USD or 350,000,000 Euro) This just doesnt add up
Not a single citation - only one link ( to a report that seems either unavailable or untranslated, but there was a review of it - totally empty of content ).
159.105.80.141 13:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The more I look the less I find. The Kaufmann report, thene Hoefle Report, etc all talk about rounding up Jews at best or trnaportation numbers - no smoking gun here. Is there some documentation on Operation Rienhard - it appears most people reading this are required to take a large leap of faith if they want to get into the spirit of the story. The opening sentence of the article says it all - starts with the required acceptance of the idea of code words ( that means no evidence that their even was a nefariuos Operation Reinhard ). Something this central to the holocaust must - has to - have more documentation than this.
159.105.80.141
18:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The description of Heydrich's assassins as "Czech underground resistance" people is not quite correct. The assassins were Czech agents trained by the British SOE and infiltrated by them to kill Heydrich. The operation came from outside Czechoslovakia rather than planned inside. The local resistance, when contacted by the agents, tried to dissuade them from the action. Also I wish the "Reinhardt/Reinhard" thing could be settled. I have seen scans of original German documents on the Web, which call it "Reinhardt." If this is the correct spelling, and it seems to be, all Wiki references should be standardized as "Reinhardt." Shirokuma1 05:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
The use of the term 'euthanasia killing centres' hardly seems appropriate? Maxplanar ( talk) 18:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
"Approximately 178,045,960 German Reichsmark worth of Jewish property (today's value: around 700,000,000 USD or 550,000,000 euro) was stolen."
The wording on this sentence needs to be changed. For the taking of property to qualify as stealing, the act must be illegal. It's a sad fact that the taking of the property as well as the murders were sanctioned by the goverment. Because the property was taken legally, "stolen" should be replaced with a different world like "confiscated". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.173.116 ( talk) 22:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The exchange rate has fluctuated so much between Euros and Dollars to approximate confiscated property estimates that it warrants changing. That cannot be right, but I don't know which takes primacy in adjusting it, because I don't know the original rates, and exchange ratios. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.195.90 ( talk) 14:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Any attempts to relate currency values in different periods - even within the same currency - can only be very, very approximate, and there are a range of different methods which come up with widely differing results. I think the best you can manage here is "roughly 500 million to 1 billion dollars in 2009 equivalent". And in any case, the original figure can only be very approximate as well.(Don't confuse the issue even further by bringing in yet another currency, the euro.) 78.147.28.242 ( talk) 09:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Look at categories Category:Operation Reinhard belongs to. I think we need a category for German operations that were targeting civilian populations (Jewish and otherwise), not military. What do you think? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
This subject is NOT military - no military was involved in it. In fact, the entire article (except for subsection "Alternative Definition") is incorrect. There is no authentic documentation (not even the Höfle Telegram uses the name "Reinhard") for the content of this article.-- Joe ( talk) 15:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The link to Yad Vashem as a source lacks qualification or standing. The linked-to article, while its content agrees with much in the Wikipedia article, itself contains no further references to actual sources such as original documentation (I've seen nothing at all of this sort, anywhere on this subject) nor even to eyewitness or perpetrator testimony. Perpetrator testimony (Höss's) I've seen differs so much from the definition now shown that I would call it contradictory (see "Alternative Definition" in the article.
The article at German Wikipedia acknowledges a popular perception that the name is related to Reinhard Heydrich, but concludes (with citation) that the name originally came from that of Fritz Reinhardt. This goes a long way toward explaining the variations in spelling-- Joe ( talk) 16:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Let's have a consensus on the most appropriate image for this article.
I personally think a contemporary image should be the first choice, after looking through Wiki Commons I have noted it's hard to find a suitable i.e. perfect image. The Holocaust is well documented but there does not appear to be an image showing deportations to these deaths camps during this period.
The next best choice is therefore a latter day image of a site. There have been several changes in recent months, but I don' think any have been satisfactory. Currently the new image shows a memorial at Treblinka, before that was an image of the road/sluice that led to Sobibor, and before that an incorrect image referencing Chelmo.
I personally would like to see an image of a site or a relic in situ (like a railway sign), rather than a memorial as that reflects on interpretation rather than the actuality of the crime. It may sound odd but something that was there at the time of mass killings, although an inanimate object, bore witness to those horrible events.
A picture of a memorial is an image of remembrance that came after the fact. What do other editors think regarding this point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.70.112 ( talk) 23:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I object to the line "...creation of camps that had only one purpose: to kill thousands of people quickly and efficiently." The article on the Holocaust says that clothes were confiscated, soap and towels given to the victims, and gold teeth removed after they were massacred. This suggest that these camps has at least two other purposes, in addition to the one above: raising of money and prevention of riots and unrest. I hope that most people can understand that my changes to the article are tasteful. -- Acewolf359 ( talk) 17:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Utterly bogus, and smells a bit like Holocaust denial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.67.92 ( talk) 21:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I realize that "Endlösung der Judenfrage" is commonly translated as, "the Final Solution," but this omits "der Judenfrage" so that the literal translation should be, "Final Solution of the Jewish Question," including the German capitalization of both nouns. Dick Kimball ( talk) 18:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Even with quick a read I notice that the meaning of some parts have been skewed through omission. Where is the mention of Reserve Police Battalion 101, Globocnik made this SS unit responsible for sending the Jews to the death camps. Or that confiscated valuable were eventually sent to the Reichbank. And probably the most egregious omission is that the death camps were developed sequentially culminating in Treblinka. The Nazis used stepped development of each site they were not all built to the same configuration.
If you're going to rewrite stuff at least know more about the topic than is already in the article. Furthermore, my toes curl when I read:
Where did you get this from, watching Escape from Sobibor? From what I have read, as soon as the victims entered the killing area they were ordered to disrobe by threats of violence. Dogs were set upon the tardy, while whips and clubs were used to frighten the others.
Overall this is not an improvement but a rewrite of personal feelings. Good for a school essay but as an encyclopaedic entry, nope, not by a long way. 86.182.42.124 ( talk) 12:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC) from Chester, United Kingdom
I came to this page because it had a cs1 template that used a now-deprecated parameter. I fixed that and noticed a variety of misused cs1 parameters:
|format=
identifies the electronic file format of the file pointed to by |url=
. These are all a misuse of the parameter:
|format=PDF file, direct download 4.7 MB
|format=Google Books preview
|format=[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/stutthof.html Introduction]
|publisher=
is used to identify the publisher of the work being cited. Here the parameter contains an external link unrelated to the publisher. Values assigned to this parameter are made part of the citation's metadata. When the parameter value has information unrelated to the purpose of the parameter, the metadata are corrupted.
|publisher=Foreign Languages Publishing House [http://dl.dropbox.com/u/47875651/TheHellOfTreblinka.html (online version)]
|quote=
is used to quote relevant text from the source
|quote=''original in Russian:'' Гроссман В.С., [http://lib.ru/PROZA/GROSSMAN/trebl.txt ''Повести, рассказы, очерки''] [Stories, Journalism, and Essays], Воениздат 1958.
–|authorn=
is used to identify the nth author of the cited source. Here it is used to identify a location. The value assigned to any |authorn=
, |lastn=
, |firstn=
, |authors=
and |vauthors=
becomes part of the citation's metadata so including non-author information in an 'author' parameter corrupts the metadata:
|author3=at Düsseldorf
|authorlinkn=
links authorn in the author name list to an article about that author. This parameter was used to link |author3=at Düsseldorf
which created a link like this:
at Düsseldorf. A reader clicking on that link would expect to land on a Düsseldorf page not on
Treblinka trials
|authorlink3=Treblinka trials
So I fixed a bunch of that, mostly by deletion. Editor Poeticbent reverted me but then simply misuses different parameters:
|id=
– content of this parameter is to be used to uniquely identify the source
|id=Document size 4.7 MB
|id=[[Treblinka trials]], Düsseldorf
|id=Internet Archive
|language=
is used to identify the language of the source and is used to add the article to an appropriate category
|language=translation from [http://lib.ru/PROZA/GROSSMAN/trebl.txt Гроссман В.С., "Треблинский ад"]
|medium=
is an alias of |type=
. This parameter is to be used to additional information about the work's media type
|medium=[http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/stutthof.html Introduction]
It appears to me that editors of this article are attempting to squeeze too much information into the cs1 templates. The templates are designed to identify a single source that supports certain article text. Editor Poeticbent's revert of my edit should be reverted and the necessary information (Amazon inside view, Google books preview are examples of things that are not necessary) made into separate citations or footnotes. Descriptive text does not belong in the template itself but can be added to the reference between the close of the template and the close of the reference: {{cite ... |...}} descriptive text goes here. </ref>
—
Trappist the monk (
talk)
12:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
|via=
may be appropriate for Google books and internet archive. '
Treblinka trials, Düsseldorf' is not a unique identifier; 'Internet Archive' is not a unique identifier; 'Google Books' is not a unique identifier; 'Amazon Look Inside' is not a unique identifier. Links in the citation are to help a reader locate the source used to validate article text, the Treblinka trials link is not such a link; a useful link would be a link to a translation of the Ząbecki source.|id=Google books preview
, none of the links that I clicked led to previews. Unless the link actually goes to a preview and the reader can read the material that supports the article text there, such links are essentially useless.|via=Google Books
suggestion instead of the |id=Google Books
to be used, but please do not lecture me in that superior tone. Citation templates make Wikipedia look good and that's why I use them, not because I have to; URLs placed in square brackets are perfectly acceptable forms of external link syntax also. BTW, all of the citations with |id=Google books preview
in this article work just fine at my location as previews. I'm sorry to hear your location prevents you from reading books online as I do; besides, I don't even know what it is that you see onscreen, but that's OK. I don't need to,
Poeticbent
talk
20:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)|via=Google books preview
in a citation sets a reader's expectation that a preview of the book is available. When that expectation is not realized for whatever reason, readers are disappointed because we led to them to believe that a preview is available. It is better I think to provide an ISBN which the cs1|2 templates automatically link to
Special:BookSources from which point readers have a variety of ways to find the book. Special:BookSources includes Google books so the direct link in |url=
is not really necessary.URLs placed in square brackets are perfectly acceptable forms of external link syntax; I have not said otherwise.
|id=
, |language=
and |medium=
are still being misused. This single citation template should be at least three templates:
{{Citation |ref=harv |last=Grossman |first=Vasily |authorlink=Vasily Grossman |orig-year=1946 |year=1958 |title=The Treblinka Hell |language=translation from [http://lib.ru/PROZA/GROSSMAN/trebl.txt Гроссман В.С., "Треблинский ад"] |url=http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/essays/grossmantreblinka46.pdf |publisher=Foreign Languages Publishing House (Воениздат) |medium=[http://dl.dropbox.com/u/47875651/TheHellOfTreblinka.html cross-check] |publication-place=Moscow |chapter=Повести, рассказы, очерки |trans-chapter=Stories, Journalism, and Essays |format=PDF |id=document size 2.14 MB |accessdate=5 October 2014 }}
|title=The Treblinka Hell
is linked with the content from |url=http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/essays/grossmantreblinka46.pdf
. Following that
link gives us a title page. From the title page we get author, title, publisher, location, and publication date. We can also get page numbers from the pdf. On the second page of the pdf is "The Treblinka Hell". This, presumably, is the chapter. But in the original citation, we have |chapter=Повести, рассказы, очерки
and its mate |trans-chapter=Stories, Journalism, and Essays
. Neither are found in the pdf so their provenance is unknown. Clearly they do not belong with the pdf. So, here is a complete template:
{{cite book |last=Grossman |first=Vasily |authorlink=Vasily Grossman |chapter=The Treblinka Hell |title=The Years of War (1941–1945) |chapter-url=http://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/essays/grossmantreblinka46.pdf |location=Moscow |publisher=Foreign Languages Publishing House |date=1946 |pages=371–408}}
|medium=
contains a link to a different
document. From this we can get author, title, chapter, and translators.
{{cite book |last=Grossman |first=Vasily Semyonovich |chapter=The Hell of Treblinka |title=The Road: Stories, Journalism, and Essays |chapter-url=http://dl.dropbox.com/u/47875651/TheHellOfTreblinka.html |others=V. Grossman, R. Chandler, E. Chandler, O. Mukovnikova (trans.) |access-date=1 August 2015}}
|language=
contains link to a another different
document, this one in Russian. From it, with the assistance of Google translate, we get author, title, date (19 сентября 2002 (апрель-май) → September 19, 2002 (April-May); not very clear what that means), original publisher and publication date(?).
{{cite web |last=Grossman |first=Vasily |script-title=ru:Треблинский ад |trans-title=Treblinka Hell |url=http://lib.ru/PROZA/GROSSMAN/trebl.txt |date=19 September 2002 |orig-year=1958 |language=ru}}
{{
sfn}}
template linking to one as is done in the article with the Arad, Shirer, and Smith references, would not go amiss. The other two could be at a second level of indentation:
citation
template in the same inline <ref></ref> setup even though it makes perfect sense the way you put it.
Poeticbent
talk
14:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)|quote=
parameter automatically adds quotation marks to everything ... with no room for maneuver, including supplementary data such as names of individuals quoted, footnotes, translations; or, where exactly the quoted text originates from. There's nothing that can be done about those forced results. Over time, I got accustomed to supplementing different parameters if necessary to produce a desired outcome. It was OK before the so-called "error tracking" came into effect; now it's not. Words within templates can no longer be taken at face value because they have become code-words.
Poeticbent
talk
14:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)|quote=
since it was first added to {{
cite book}}
in February 2006. The purpose of |quote=
is to render a brief quotation from the referenced source. The location of the quoted text is identified by the content of |page=
, |pages=
, or |at=
. It has been ever thus.full stops appear and disappear at random ... but only in preview? That behavior has not been reported before but, if it exists, an attempt should be made to fix the underlying cause.
|id=Document size 2.14 MB
and similar is still a misuse of |id=
as is |quote=With archival photos.
and similar.{{cite ... |...}} descriptive text goes here. </ref>
|id=Document size 4.7 MB
|id=Document size 33.1 KB
|id=Document size 2.14 MB
|id=Document size 7.89 MB
|id=Document size 7.91 MB complete
|id=document size 20.2 MB
|id=[[Treblinka trials]], Düsseldorf
|id=Document size 23.9 KB
|id=document size 20.2 MB
|id=Complete
|quote=
:
|quote=With archival photos.
|quote=Made available at the Mapping Treblinka webpage by ARC.
|quote=Testimony of ''SS Scharführer'' Erich Fuchs in the Sobibór-Bolender trial, Düsseldorf.
|quote=with list of Catholic [[Polish Righteous among the Nations|rescuers of Jews]] escaping Treblinka, selected testimonies, bibliography, alphabetical indexes, photographs, English language summaries, and forewords by Holocaust scholars.
|quote=English language summaries, and forewords by Holocaust scholars.
|quote=''Source:'' "Atlas of the Holocaust" by Martin Gilbert (1982).
|quote=''See Smith's book excerpts at:'' [http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/survivor/sperling.html Hershl Sperling: Personal Testimony] by David Adams, and the book summary at [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1302964/Last-victim-Treblinka-He-survived-SEVEN-Nazi-concentration-camps--nightmare-caught-him.html Last victim of Treblinka] by Tony Rennell.
|archive-url=
and |archive-date=
|quote=''Also:'' [http://www.webcitation.org/6GIJ2XpOy PDF cache archived by WebCite.]
|asin=
and |asin-td=
, use them to replace these parameters
|id=Amazon Look inside
|id= {{ASIN|0253213053|country=uk}}
|id=also at [http://www.amazon.ca/The-Rise-Fall-Third-Reich/dp/1451651686#reader_1451651686 Amazon: Search inside]
|id=Document
, others with the lower case "d" i.e. |id=document
. The reason is only because full stops appear and disappear in the templates without rhyme or reason.
Poeticbent
talk
17:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC){{
cite book}}
, {{
cite web}}
, {{
cite journal}}
, etc. while cs2 has only one template, {{
citation}}
. cs1 and cs2 differ in how they render the citation. cs1 uses full stops between citation elements (author name list, title, chapter, date, etc) and terminates the citation with a full stop. In contrast, cs2 uses commas between elements and does not have terminal puctuation:
{{cite book |title=A cs1 template using cite book |author=Author |chapter=Chapter |date=2 August 2015}}
{{citation |title=A cs2 template using citation |author=Author |chapter=Chapter |date=2 August 2015}}
|access-date=
, that text is capitalized in cs1 because the text begins a sentence. For cs2, the text is not capitalized because the whole citation is treated as a single sentence.@
Trappist the monk: Any reason why Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2 templates do not produce consistent results? Your guess is as good as mine. – Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. The only way to make the outcome look uniform is to make the templates work together!
But, going back to
|quote=
, I'm not sure I made myself clear. When a book is written by a historian quoting a number of historical sources worth reproducing, the description of those sources should not be forced inside the quotation marks. The template parameter leaves no room for maneuver and creates an automatic error instead. Here's but a tiny example of what I mean from our article
The Holocaust (there are tons of them everywhere):
Those who offer explicit or implicit arguments for including them among the victims of the Holocaust, such as Bohdan Wytwycky in The Other Holocaust and Christian Streit and Jürgen Forster in The Policies of Genocide, point out that the appallingly high losses among Soviet prisoners of war were racially determined. The Germans did not usually mistreat prisoners from other Allied countries, but in the Nazi view Soviet prisoners were Slavic "subhumans" who had no right to live.[this is the end of the direct quotation lacking the closing quotation mark; following text is not a part of the actual quotation]Those who would include Polish and Soviet civilian losses in the Holocaust include Bohdan Wytwycky in The Other Holocaust, Richard C. Lukas in The Forgotten Holocaust: The Poles Under German Rule, 1939–1944, and Ihor Kamenetsky in Secret Nazi Plans for Eastern Europe.
{{
cite book}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)|mode=cs1
which makes {{
citation}}
templates render as if they were cs1 templates, and similarly |mode=cs2
which makes cs1 templates render as if they were {{citation}}
. Using my examples from before, this time with |mode=
:
|quote=
should only be used judiciously. When a citation contains a quote, that citation can only be used to support that one point. For example, a single page in a source can be used to support multiple statements in a Wikipedia article. That same page might describe the 'pro' side of an issue as well as the 'con' side of the issue. If the Wikipedia citation quotes one side, that same citation cannot be used as a reference for the other side. Similarly, when it is beneficial to quote some material and also include editorial comment about that quote, much like your example, |quote=
is not up to the task.{{reflist|group="N"}}
.
[N 1]References
References
{{
cite book}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 6 external links on
Operation Reinhard. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
If Operation Reinhard controlled the three camps of Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka, why are the other 3 camps listed as "additional" camps in the infobox? (could be read as "additionally part of Operation Reinhard") And why is Majdanek present in the table of camp commandants? (Majdanek is especially confusing, as it was located within the General Government) This creates an ambiguity about what is meant by "extermination camps of Operation Reinhard". Some clarity would be nice. Uglemat ( talk) 15:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
To Poeticbent and Beyond My Ken. The Nazi holocaust is not my area of expertise, but I'm soon done reading the book by Raul Hilberg. You seem quite defensive about the prisoners issue, and I feel that what you are trying to do is to keep denialists at bay. In my opinion, half-truths will not do. They will only encourage denialist who will be more prone to believe that they have "uncovered" something if they discover low-hanging fruit. That is one of the reasons why I tried to remove the sentence "took no prisoners", because that was not the impression I got after reading Hilberg, and I couldn't bear leaving the sentence like that when I felt it was false. I certainly agree that the sole purpose of keeping prisoners in Sobibor/Treblinka/Belzec was for the running of the destructive machinery of death. But there were prisoners, and I don't think they solely dealt with corpse disposal (altough this was obviously their most important duty). The existence of a few hundred prisoners in camps where hundreds of thousands vanished hardly raises questions about the fate of the arrivals. The arithmetic makes things plain.
This is how Hilberg described the purpose of Treblinka prisoners: "Unlike Auschwitz, which had a very large inmate population, Treblinka kept only a few work parties (all Jews) for maintenance and other purposes" (p. 981; my emphasis. According to the index, he is describing the death camp, not Treblinka I). Now that I have been searching frantically for the preceeding quote, I realize that part of the reason for my feeling "no prisoners" is so wrong may have been influenced by my lack of mental distinction between the death camps and the labor camps with identical names (Treblinka I, Belzec labor camp).
In Treblinka, 150-200 of the 700 inmates managed to escape in a breakout on 2 August 1943, of which perhaps 60-70 survived the ensuing pursuit. In Sobibor, 300 inmates revolted on 14 October 1943, of which 40–50 lived by the end of the war. (Both events in Hilberg, pp. 981–982.)
Anyways, be assured that my intentions are pure! Uglemat ( talk) 21:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Some of the most notorious slave labour camps included Mauthausen, Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, Gross-Rosen (with 100 subcamps),[7] Ravensbrück (70 subcamps),[8] and Auschwitz (with 44 subcamps eventually),[9] among other places.[9][10]— There were NO forced labour facilities of this kind at any of the Reinhard camps. That is what we mean by saying that
Operation Reinhard took no prisoners.We can add to it the camp duties also. Notably, the cleaning and kitchen duties were assigned to women who did NOT come from the death trains. The revised line could read:
Operation Reinhard took no prisoners, except as a means of furthering the camps' sole purpose of methodical extermination of Jews.What do you think? Poeticbent talk 22:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Operation Reinhard. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
As indicated in the subject, I want to ask the reason i.e. of the recent unexplained revert, since it is quite odd what's happening. Austria was annexed by Germany in 1938, so after it there is no reason to claim "including Austria", it is evident, but we may link Germany in this way so there would be no confusion. Moreover, the former Austria inside Germany that time did not exist, so such reference is imprecise and fallacious, as I referred to it as well in the edit log, so once more it is inunderstandable what's the problem wih the linking of Ostmark (Austria) that may save the incoherent situation. If not any wise consensus with this is possible, then the content of the bracket should be deleted, since it is enough then "The new network of Nazi concentration camps built by SS in Germany, Poland, and elsewhere in Europe..." etc.( KIENGIR ( talk) 20:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC))
The new network of [[Nazi concentration camps]] built by [[SS]] in Germany (including Austria), Poland, and elsewhere in Europe began exploiting foreign captives in war industry.
Poeticbent
talk
15:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)There was no Polish railway system under German occupation. The phrase is linked to the Polish State Railways, which were stolen by the Germans, and in the GG renamed the Ostbahn. Xx236 ( talk) 09:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/study-reveals-the-nazis-murdered-1-47-million-jews-in-100-days-during-1942/?fbclid=IwAR3wD5RXT6iEiwsiHblw9MrvypdF29YZMiiXeB7oT9UBqDrCoZT5qjG3v7c Xx236 ( talk) 10:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Der Kern des Holocaust. Bełżec, Sobibór, Treblinka und die Aktion Reinhardt. C.H. Beck, München 2017. 207 S. ISBN 978-3-406-70702-5. Xx236 ( talk) 06:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "exploration of the history of concentration camps seems off-topic". -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The term "Jewish Poles" in the lead strikes me as somewhat misleading, considering Poles and Jews are typically considered to be two separate ethnic groups, and the Nazis especially made this a very clear distinction; I propose that the wording be changed to "Polish Jews". Rootless Cosmopolitan ( talk) 23:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
"Trebinka" should be "Treblinka" (can't fix it, since the page is protected) WorldAsWill ( talk) 21:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)