Talk:Operation Reinhard/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Introduction

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.

... Who was the smartass who had the idea to point out that jews are human beings too? I mean seriously, "Oh, as long as most of the human beings were jews".... I'll change it to 1.700.000 people were murdered — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabljuh (talk • contribs) 09:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

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)

Name of article

[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

Killing programs

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)

Type of engine

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)

Gas source

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)

The first vans used CO pumped in from a cylinder, later ones used engine exhaust. The first type was a development from the T4 'euthanasia' program. (sources: Allan Bullock, 'Hitler and Stalin', 1993, p 811 and 821-22). Most of the Reinhard camps used engine exhaust.
The name is properly Reinhard, after Reinhard Heydrich, but is occasionally spelled with a 't' in Nazi documents and elsewhere. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:58, 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)

Former Version

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

I just checked and the current exchange rate is $1.28 for every Euro. So yeah not anywhere near a 2:1 ratio. I would fix this but don't know the correct values. --Petahhhh 23:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


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)

Euthanasia?

The use of the term 'euthanasia killing centres' hardly seems appropriate? Maxplanar (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Stolen?

"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)

Exchange Rate / Euro and Dollar

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)

Need a new category

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)

I Agree

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)

Yad Vashem Reference "Empty"

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)

Article Image

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 agree with your thoughts in general, and with the railway sign idea in particular. I think that the Treblinka sign (below) would work in the infobox. Ericoides (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Well there is no consensus as there is no discussion so I have changed the picture to the Treblinka rail sign. Ericoides (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The Treblinka sign in the photograph is likely from the postwar Poland, not from the World War II period. Poeticbent talk 22:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Excessively biased language

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)

I think your POV has seriously undermined your own case, "raising of money and prevention of riots and unrest." That was a side issue to the real role and that was the extermination of people. The Nazis didn't send them to the death camps to fleece them, they sent there to die. And the riots and unrest, where did you get that from?

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)

The above commentator may be a bit off, for indeed that was the purpose and did happen; however, I have to agree in part with the point insofar as the opening sentence. For some reason - perhaps being over-objective and a bit too PC here - the term "murder" doesn't sit well with me. While there is a legal precedent for using that term (the IMT for starters, not to mention the ICC), it does seem morally weighty for an encyclopedia article. A slight revision may be in order: "Murder" it most certainly was, but it at least should be linked to a section on the article itself to reference the definition in this context (perhaps "Genocide," or the section within the "Murder" article which would cover the subject); otherwise, however undesirably, the word itself should perhaps be changed to a more neutral term.
The world's judgement - criminal courts, war crimes trials, and historians - have all deemed it murder. We go by what the RS states.HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
No denial here: just twitching about semantics. I don't intend to make any changes to the article; I'll leave that to Admin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.162.187 (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Endlösung der Judenfrage

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)

Thanks for mentioning this. I fixed the translation as well as few other things along the way. Poeticbent talk 19:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

26 January 2015

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:

"everyone was ordered to disrobe for a communal bath: "quickly – they were told – or the water will get cold."

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

Wikipedia is a work in progress. Focus on the article please. No need for wp:personal attacks of any kind in here. Things can be improved when properly pointed out and assessed for their relevancy. However, your first point about the phrase: "Go quickly or the water will get cold" is plain wrong. The phrase was used commonly on the orders of Franz Suchomel. Here are the sources:
  1. Jewishgen.org (direct quote): The Ukrainian guard Pavel Vladimirovich Leleko was a witness to such atrocities. In a statement to Soviet investigators immediately after the war, Leleko described the daily gassing operations: “When the procession of the condemned approached the gas chambers, the motorists (engine operators) would shout: 'Go quickly or the water will get cold.'“
  2. HolocaustResearchProject.org (direct quote): Pavel Leleko, a Ukrainian – SS Wachmann of the Treblinka death camp guard-force testified about the procedure of mass extermination: “When the procession of the condemned approached the gas chambers the “motorists” of the gas chambers would shout, “Go quickly or the water will get cold.”
  3. Please provide reference for the presence of dogs in "the procession of the condemned". The only dog I know of was Bary owned by Kurt Franz at Treblinka, oftentimes set on the Sonderkommando prisoners, but not necessarily in the Tube.
  4. The Reserve Police Battalion 101 along with all other Orpo battalions who bore the brunt of the Holocaust by bullet on the Eastern Front served under the control of the SS but not as the actual SS units. They were law enforcement formations outfitted and deployed by the regular police force within Germany (Struan Robertson, "Verreichlichung").
Poeticbent talk 15:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

misuse of cs1 citation template parameters

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)

  • This is an example of how the rigid understanding of preformatted templates can be taken to the extreme with personal interpretation of loosely defined parameters. For example, "additional information" is additional information, that's what "additional information" means. It does not mean "too much information." Likewise, how we "uniquely identify the source" is a judgement call, for example, that the source is Internet Archive which is not being mentioned anywhere else in the note. There's a major difference between a source size 20 megabytes, and 20 kilobytes, in case the reader wants to download that PDF file and doesn't mind paying for more bandwidth. Unless of course, we don't intend to go there in the first place ... and than nothing matters anymore. Thanks for your patience, Poeticbent talk 14:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
The purpose of the cs1|2 templates is to simplify the task of rendering usable, understandable citations that support article text and provide a method by which readers can verify that the facts as they are stated in the article have some validity. The templates are general purpose tools suited to the vast majority of Wikipedia's citation needs. There are rules that govern their use so that readers and other downstream consumers of cs1|2 citations get consistent quality and so that editors use the tools properly. Redefining what a parameter holds simply to suit your notion of how the template should work and in defiance of these rules defeats the purpose of the templates for this article because it is counter to reader and editor expectations. If you want to create citations that contain all of this extra stuff, you are free to invent your own style to do so but you should not misuse cs1|2 as a way of accomplishing that style.
So all of the millions of articles that use cs1|2 templates (and thus the many more millions of individual cs1|2 citations) what follow the rules have got it wrong?. I don't think so. In the vast majority of them the editors have gotten it right and they do that without oversight from anyone.
When most of the world was using dial-up, the 20kB v 20MB size difference may have mattered. Not so much anymore. And really, citations that refer to large files aren't much different from citations that link to documents behind a paywall. In both cases it may take a bit of money to get what you want.
There are appropriate places to put some of the 'additional' information: |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.
Of all of the citations with |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.
I provided an example of how extra information not suited to cs1|2 parameters may be accommodated. You should, perhaps, try that; it's free-form so you can pretty much put anything you want there.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Needless to say, I appreciate your positive input such as the |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)
Including |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.
I agree that 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}}
Grossman, Vasily (1946). "The Treblinka Hell" (PDF). The Years of War (1941–1945). Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House. pp. 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}}
Grossman, Vasily Semyonovich. "The Hell of Treblinka". The Road: Stories, Journalism, and Essays. V. Grossman, R. Chandler, E. Chandler, O. Mukovnikova (trans.). Retrieved 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}}
Grossman, Vasily (19 September 2002) [1958]. Треблинский ад [Treblinka Hell] (in Russian).
So, three citations, each citing a single work, no misused cs1|2 parameters. Putting the three in §References with an {{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:
—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Trappist the monk. Now, this is what I call true help from a peer who's in the know. I can use your tips in my other articles. BTW, I never thought of doubling (or tripling) 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)
Addendum. Some of the parameters inside Wikipedia citation templates are designed for those with no knowledge of style manuals. Occasionally, they produce grammatical errors which are mechanically-driven; full stops appear and disappear at random ... but only in preview. The |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)
The automatic addition of quotation marks has been a feature of |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.
Can you show an example of a cs1|2 template where 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.
With regard to your most recent change to the article, |id=Document size 2.14 MB and similar is still a misuse of |id= as is |quote=With archival photos. and similar.
If this stuff is truly important, it should be placed between the close of the template and the close of the reference as I suggested before: {{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
Same for this stuff in |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.
if these are important, they should be split into separate cites:
  • |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.
use |archive-url= and |archive-date=
  • |quote=''Also:'' [http://www.webcitation.org/6GIJ2XpOy PDF cache archived by WebCite.]
Because cs1|2 has |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]
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Please look again at your results from above. You will notice that some of my words begin with an upper case "D" in the |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)
There is rhyme and reason. This article uses both Citation Style 1 and Citation Style 2 templates. cs1 is the group of 20ish templates that include {{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}}
Author (2 August 2015). "Chapter". A cs1 template using cite book. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help) – full stop separators and terminal punctuation
{{citation |title=A cs2 template using citation |author=Author |chapter=Chapter |date=2 August 2015}}
Author (2 August 2015), "Chapter", A cs2 template using citation {{citation}}: |author= has generic name (help) – comma separators without terminal punctuation
When the template provides certain text like the 'retrieved' text associated with |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.
All of this has nothing to do with previewing a page.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@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):

  • The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust. Columbia University Press. 2000. p. 49. ISBN 0231112009. 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)
I don't know why the decision was taken to make cs1 different from cs2. There are proponents of both styles so they are not going to change. However, because there are cases where one might want a template to render in the other style, there is |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=:
Author (2 August 2015), "Chapter", A cs1 template using cite book and |mode=cs2 {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)
Author (2 August 2015). "Chapter". A cs2 template using citation and |mode=cs1. {{citation}}: |author= has generic name (help)
I have come to believe that |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.
So, I've come to believe that most cs1|2 templates should not include quotes. Instead, the quoted material should be included in the article proper or in a notes section and then the quote should be referenced using normal citation templates. You might rewrite your example citation this way, assuming a notes section with {{reflist|group="N"}}.[N 1]

References

  1. ^ "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."[1] 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.[2]

References

  1. ^ The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust. Columbia University Press. 2000. p. 49. ISBN 0231112009. {{cite book}}: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors= (help)
  2. ^ Author. Other Ref. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)
—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Where does Operation Reinhard begin and end?

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)

  • Thanks for asking. The question of Majdanek needs to be answered properly, see the Höfle Telegram article which explains the connection with Reinhard, which was overlooked by the earlier historians. Lublin/Majdanek was a part of Reinhard ... there were four camps involved, not only the original three mentioned in earlier literature. I'll see what I can do. Poeticbent talk 16:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

"Took no prisoners"

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)

  • The main point here is a clear breakout from the forced labor system of other camps, where the entire transports of prisoners were allowed to live. In the Background section of this article there's a statement which reads: 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)
I totally support the revised line (or something along those lines). Thanks for the reply! Uglemat (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent reverts

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))

Our purpose is to communicate information to our readers, and "...built by the SS in Germany (including Austria)..." says (1) The SS built camps in Germany, (2) some of the camps they built in Germany were in the part of Germany that used to be Austria. This is the information we want to convey, while the addition of "Ostmark" -- a name for the part of Germany that was formerly Austria which will be known by only a handful of people who likely already know all this information already anyway -- simply adds confusion where there was none before, which is why I reverted its addition. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, it means that you did not check really what you have reverted, because in my edit the term "Austria" remained, but became linked with the "Ostmark (Austria)" - so the term "Ostmark" is not even visible in the page -, so the reader totally gets every information what you wish to convey - just a link was added - more than that the "former" was put before...especially for those readers that you argue for! And on the contrary of your argumentation, the current form is confusing, while my proposal is totally annihilating any possible confusion. The readers should not be mislead, we struggle for accurate content in WP, but not to serve ignorant or incorrect information for the readers based on an assumption of lack of knowledge, by this we may downgrade hundreds and thousands of articles on a poor, inaccurate level. So, again, the recent form causes confusion since "Austria" did not exist on that timeline and causes similar problems like with other countries entitities which are referred back in time anachronistically, but we always find a standard solution in WP to properly handle this. So please react also that part what solution you would support:
1. "The new network of Nazi concentration camps built by SS in Germany, Poland, and elsewhere in Europe..." -> The problem is solved with the linking, since Germany includes the former territory of Austria evidentially
2. "The new network of Nazi concentration camps built by SS in Germany (including the former Austria), Poland, and elsewhere in Europe..." -> The problem is solved since "former" was added that makes clear that timeline Austria is not anymore existent, the linking gives the oppurtunity for the reader to check what that time means the former Austria, inside Germany, perfect, short and professional solution.
Of course, if you think there would be other proper alternatives, present them. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2018 (UTC))
  • The text as edited by Beyond My Ken is most appropriate, because Austria is a sovereign country and the territory of 'occupied' Austria is in Austria (quote): 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)
@Poeticbent: Excuse, me, are you serious? Or maybe I was misunderstood...so again: no way can Beyond My Ken's edit the most appropriate, because Austria is today a sovereign country, then such entity did not exist! That time the territory of the former Austria - before or after when Austria existed for a while, does not matter - is Germany. It has nothing to do with current or former status quo. I am dealing with plenty with history articles, and since years I've never met with such incomprehension....we never mix contemporary status quo in different historical timelines, as well, before 1921 you cannot tell that i.e. Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia was included in another country when they did not even came to existence. It makes anyway a false impression that non-existent entities would in a form be part of another country, that is twice as bad and fallacious. So, as an experienced editor in such matters, I have to tell that my 2. proposal is the most professional solution, if some are stick to emphasize a non-existent entity just to highlight something that majority of the people would not now...please...I am properly understood?(KIENGIR (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC))
  • Make no mistake, the current 'status quo' (as you call it) is the most common point of reference for every old nation of Europe, i.e.: Italy, France, Germany, Russia, etc. The First Austrian Republic was established in 1919. The Second Polish Republic was established in 1918. These countries are, what we usually refer to today as Austria and Poland. Mind you, at the beginning of World War II, both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union declared that Poland ceased to exist, but it did not ! And that's why we say that the network of Nazi concentration camps was built in Poland, see the German camps in occupied Poland during World War II article for more. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 21:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
@Poeticbent:, no way, I did not made any mistake. Especially dealing heavily with history articles with Central and Eastern Europe as well, where many countries just have been created in the less hundred or or two hundred years, and they cannot be by any mean referred in any way back in time, or the one who does it commits a huge mistakes and creates a huge confusion. Such cases we handle continously and properly on those articles, that's why I am heavily amazed about the situation right now. As I told, it does not matter there was an Austria before 1938, since in history sometimes some countries are disappearing/partitioned/transformed/annexed etc. there are plenty of way of ceasure. Austria ceased to exist in 1938, and your comparison with Poland is as well fallacious, since there two status quo was conflicting in recognition - Allies vs. Axis - , de facto and de jure situations, and there were splittled entities not necessarily incorporated or annexed to Germany. I.e., for the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia you may tell that Germany included it - now I don't go into details regarding the exact situation, but I know it of course - but regarding Austria, there is not such, regarding neither your or my recent example. Thus your argumentation is fallacious, there is only one alternative if you wish to reflect the thing for the current status quo:
1. The new network of Nazi concentration camps built by SS in the territory of today's Germany, Austria and Poland, .... (since today Austria is not included in Germany, thus the current sentence is a totally improper and heavily contradicts your earlier reference...)
The conclusion is, since the sentence in question especially refers to the situation between 1939-1945, only my proposals are proper and valid for that timeline. We should achieve a wise consensus, don't think I am not an expert of the topic or I am not properly trained in such questions, on the contrary....(KIENGIR (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC))
This discussion has been ongoing for a while, with no additional contributors, so it would seem appropriate at this point to note that there are two people -- myself and Poeticbent -- who favor the current wording, and one person -- Kiengir -- who does not. Unless we get more participation, that's a talk page consensus for the current wording, so I suggest that the discussion be suspended to see if anyone else cares to join in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree with BMK, the section is pure background and there is not a need there for intricate detail. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, then I ask every editor who is interested in accurate & professional content to let to hear their voices, it is heavily disappointing that such little addition with a single word and a link is rejected "i.e. intricate detail" ??) and the confusing and inaccurate content is supported.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC))

Polish railway system

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)

New numbers

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)

Academic source

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)

Concentration camps

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)

"Jewish Poles"

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)

Typo

"Trebinka" should be "Treblinka" (can't fix it, since the page is protected) WorldAsWill (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Reinhard/Archive_1&oldid=1151274814"