Talk:Ivanhorod Einsatzgruppen photograph

Senor Freebee changes

Senor Freebee recently inserted the following claim into the lede of this article (bold text inserted):

In the 1960s, it was alleged that the image was a Communist forgery, but that explanation was strongly refuted by the German soldier in the photograph. Previously, the sentance ended ... but that explanation has not been widely accepted.

This assertion is based on the following quote from this newspaper article.

Then, mercifully, up popped a former member of Hitler's Einsatzgruppen, the "special action" squads used to murder a million Jews in Ukraine. The soldier in the picture is wearing German Einsatzgruppen uniform, he said, and holding the usual Einsatzgruppen rifle. What more proof do you need? Years later, an exhibition of German atrocity photographs in Eastern Europe was put on in Dresden where an old man stared at the pictures for a long time. Then he began to cry. And as he rushed from the exhibition hall, he shouted: "It's me...It's me."

I note that:

1. Fisk does not claim that the man was in fact in the photograph—just that he identified himself as such.
2. The incident is not mentioned in other sources.

I invite you to self-revert per BRD and justify your changes. You have accused me of Holocaust denial "giving undue weight to what appears to be Holocaust denial", with no evidence. (My userpage lists several GA-class articles that I have written on Holocaust topics). Catrìona (talk) 13:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Your false claim that I accused you of Holocaust denial is not helpful, neither is your edit warring, and reinforcement of material that is not supported by the sources. Do you intend to be constructive here, and do you retract that false claim?--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I've quoted your exact words above. As for WP:UNDUE, the lede is intended to summarize the body. Three arguments that the photo is genuine are presented in the article, and it is probably inappropriate to repeat the one that is given the least weight in sources (Struk's book is more reliable than a nonspecialist journalist, and the other argument is backed up by two sources). Again, Fisk does not claim that the old man was actually present in the photograph, only that the incident occurred. Catrìona (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I would say that it would be best (unless other sources can be found) to say "who identified himself as the solder".Slatersteven (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The old man's reaction doesn't warrant inclusion in the lead unless some good sources surface that say he was literally, factually identifying himself as the soldier depicted in the photo. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

So you're refusing to retract your false claim about me accusing you of Holocaust denial? If you're utterly unwilling to address the reality of the discussion that was had in your unilaterally instigated edit war, then this matter is sorted. You are not a reasonable person, who is willing to admit that they made a false accusation, let alone that their arguments (that are unsupported by source material) might be unfounded.--Senor Freebie (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Can we please delete this page.

This image is fake. You can clearly see it's fake by the faint outline around the woman. In general the only real Einsatzgruppen photos are when there's mass executions, because the Nazis would frame these as legitimate eg partisans and so on. There are many examples of more obvious fakes besides.

The reason I mention this is because very soon AI will declare this is a fake and people will doubt the entire Holocaust. To be clear I don't deny the Holocaust, my family was annihilated by the Nazis, I have no reason to doubt it but have looked into it anyway. This unfortunately is carried-over Soviet propaganda.

I am hoping this page can be silently deleted.

Many thanks Zagreus99 (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ivanhorod Einsatzgruppen photograph/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Renata3 (talk · contribs) 01:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, so I will take a crack at this.

1. Refs: can I persuade you to switch from {{r}} (which is not intuitive to a reader) to {{sfn}}?

   I use sfn for most articles, but I think that the current style works for this one. Anyway, this is personal preference and not part of the GA criteria.

   I know it is a personal preference, but the r template produces weird and hard to interpret results when two refs are cited at the same (which happens a few times in this article).

2. Intro: This iconic image... - it is not established yet what "this" is. Needs a better starting sentence. Understand that MOS:BOLDLEAD might prevent using the usual approach of bolding article title.

   Changed to "An iconic image..." "Ivanhorod Einsatzgruppen photograph" is just a name I made up myself, there is no official name and it would not be appropriate to bold it.

   How about this: "An iconic image of the Holocaust, the photograph of a soldier aiming at a woman with child depicts..." ?

    Done

3. Red links: nifty {{ill}} available for linking to other language wikis

   I use interlanguage links all the time (in fact, I've been critized for doing so), but in this case the interlanguage articles doesn't exist for the Deutsche Soldaten Zeitung. The article for Swiat exists in some odd location, but I've added the link. I've removed the third red link, because in Spiegel, the name of the archives is given as "Historicschen Archivs in Warschau". Presumably this means the Institute for National Memory, but I thought that might be overly interpretative to make a link.

4. In 1897, there were 442 Jews living in Ivanhorod - might want to link to Russian Empire Census (ref to census & total population of 3,032 https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/%D0%95%D0%AD%D0%91%D0%95/%D0%93%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BD)

   I tried to cite it, but the wikisource template appears to having trouble with Russian.

   Why not also add total population? And wlink to the census article?

    Added everything but a wlink, I don't think most readers speak Russian. Catrìona (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

5. In 1942, a mass shooting by Einsatzgruppen south of the town - more details of this shooting available? More precise date? Unit?

   None of the sources give details. I've looked again, and can't find more information unfortunately. It was either Einsatzgruppe C or Einsatzgruppe D, which were the two Einsatzgruppen that operated in the Ukraine.

   Pitty, can't find anything either :( Found info on shooting in 1942 in Ivanhorod, but appears to be a different village.

6. The Polish resistance infiltrated the postal office in Warsaw and intercepted some correspondence to be sent to the Polish government-in-exile in London. - this makes it sound that the letter was originally addressed to the gov-in-exile.

    Fixed

7. multilingual publication titled "1939–1945: We have not forgotten" - title should be in italics. Any more detail of what that book was all about? I would assume collection of documents? Who published it? The next bit although he knew that the book was using the photographs for Communist propaganda comes as a surprise out of nowhere. Also need a book ID - since ISBN not yet around, can use {{oclc}}

    Done

   Should add in-text that it was a photo album published by Society of Fighters for Freedom and Democracy, and that the photo was on the cover (which, could be uploaded to Commons under the same license)

    Done

8. lends ammunition to Holocaust deniers - explain how, I don't see it?

   He does mention Holocaust deniers earlier in the same paragraph, but it may be overly interpretative to make a link.  Removed

9. Another academic noted that it was a faithful copy of an image of 1942 mass shootings held by the Polish National Archives in Warsaw. - this seems misplaced (it looks to be in support of photos authenticity, not in support that it is a fake). Also, needs precision - who? when?

   Clarified

   Wouldn't that sentence better belong after Tomaszewski's defense?

   It appeared to have occurred before the controversy arose. I added additional details.

10. The second image depicted five armed men - available online anywhere? even if using {{External media}}. use this template to link to colorised version? https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7208550/colourised-photos-holocaust-death-camp-victims/

    Unfortunately, I was not able to find the image online; nor is it reprinted in Struk's book (if so, I would upload it). I'm not sure what the value of the colorized version is. It's not clear whether the person doing the colorization in this case has the qualifications to accurately recolor historial images, and being printed in a tabloid doesn't increase one's confidence in that regard.

    Oh, I did not see the "teenage photographer" part, nevermind.

11. The photograph received little attention for the next forty years. - this is an odd sentence. 1965 + 40 = 2005. What happened in 2005?

    Struk doesn't say what happened to bring the photo back to public attention.

    I would suggest removing this sentence altogether. The original sentence was actually closer to what the book said that there was nothing special written about the photo (not just allegations of forgery). And the way it is now, it implies that the Dresden incident in the next sentence is somehow related to the "40 years".

     Removed

12. During an exhibition of the photo in Dresden, an elderly German man burst into tears upon seeing it and said that he recognized himself. - when? it's an odd sentence to leave hanging with no follow up. who is the soldier? what's his story? did anyone believe him? Frisk is using the incident for purely emotional effect.

    I don't have any more information on this incident. Personally, I would not object to removing this, but at least one commentator on the talk page strongly disagrees.

    It's from Struk's book. pg 95. She cites the 1965 article in Świat (ref 21, pg 195)

    She does not draw any connection between the incident and this image. I have  Removed the sentence, as it's unclear what Fisk's source is for the connection.

13. The claim that it is inauthentic is not widely accepted. - this seems to be misplaced? I assume this refers to the photo? or to the Dresden incident? also, suggest rewording to remove double negative.

     Removed

14. Where is the original photo held? I guess there are two - one that was sent to London and one that Tomaszewski kept.

     Added Struk says that Tomaszewski kept the original.

15. There is more precise info on the image description page that could be imported here.

    What exact information are you referring to? Some of the information on that page is not cited to reliable sources.

16. Why is Tadeusz Mazur not mentioned? Several sources that I see mention him as co-owner of the photo, co-author of the photo book, and co-author of the article in Świat.

    I don't think he is the co-owner of the photograph, which is in Tomaszewski's personal archive. Mazur's involvement seems to be as an editor of the book and co-author of the article in Swiat.

17. Mailed to a German soldier in Warsaw - where does it actually say who the sender/addressee was? Struk does not actually say (or even imply) anything about the sender/addressee. I see bunch of online mentions, but those seem to be generic assumptions.

     Removed

Overall, it is a pretty skimpy article relying on 2 sources :-/

Renata (talk) 01:50, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review. I think the article does a reasonable job of covering the main aspects of the topic and sources all details to reliable sources. I agree that it would be great if more sources could be found; do you have any in mind that I overlooked? Catrìona (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Struck out some resolved items, and added some other comments above. Renata (talk) 04:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so I think the issues were addressed. I will make a couple minor adjustments to the article, but I am passing it a GA. Renata (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The claim of the paper

The rag that made the claim is certainly more than a right-wing one. It is a far-right extremist paper, listed as such in Verfassungsschutz(domestic security agency) documenets as being far-right extremist, amongst other things, even in 2017 and plenty more sources for that around as well of course. Being called a mere right-wing paper is rather imprecise given the overwhelming evidence that it is a far-right extremist rag. 91.248.65.42 (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like it's a great paper to read for dissidents if it's being attacked like this by the system. 2601:8C:4500:4680:A8CF:7434:B6CF:C2F7 (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

That's faulty thinking. If a lot of people claim human excrements smell bad, that's not an indication of a conspiracy. Shit does smell bad, and neonazi papers are deranged. The andf (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Weapon aimed by fully visible soldier ?

The weapon that the fully visible soldier is aiming in the photograph is of some importance, since it formed part of the (refuted) argument that the photograph is a forgery. Can the make and model of this weapon be accurately identified? Lklundin (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Twitter should not used as a source here

Re: [1]. Per WP:TWITTER, we should not use such sources here. Additionally, Wikipedia:POLANDRS comes to mind too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Waitman Wade Beorn is an expert on the Holocaust in Eastern Europe. If I were going to remove one source as dodgy it would be Fisk's editorial, since he is not an expert on the Holocaust and fails SPS. I think Beorn qualifies as a subject matter expert per WP:SPS.

This article was written before POLANDRS, obviously. (t · c) buidhe 04:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

But the Twitter sources was added after we have an emerging consensus to use better sources. I don't see what the Twitter source adds here, except that it lowers the standard for citing sources in this topic area. Let Beorn publish this claim / comment in a peer reviewed source, and then we can add it here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? There isn't any reason why Beorn, or anyone else, would publish a paper about this picture. There is little known about it and unlikely to have more uncovered. The historical importance is not that great. Furthermore, POLANDRS does not apply because the photograph was taken in Ukraine, not Poland, nothing about Beorn's quoted statement relates to Holocaust in Poland. (t · c) buidhe 06:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

If he won't publish in a RS, then his social media post doesn't belong here, per quoted policies RS/TWITTER. POLANDRS is just icing on the cake here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)