Talk:Grafeneck

First Nazi gas chamber and crematorium

This free DOAJ paper is a recension of a Susanne Knittel's book from which it takes some relevant passages. One of them states.

Grafeneck was the first institution to be outfitted with a gas chamber and crematorium, and over 10,000 people were gassed there (p. 34). However, as with the rest of Nazi Euthanasia, post-war acknowledgement of the crime was selective and belated, and justice was faulty. Moreover, victims were left without a voice and their victimisation was repressed, incorporated into other narratives or otherwise selectively represented.

It needs to be verified with additional sources, but it would be a reason for Wikipedia:relevance and not to delete the article.Philosopher81sp (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the prominent redirects to Grafeneck Euthanasia Centre there, Philosopher81sp?

Zezen (talk) 17:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

sorry, @Zezen:, there was a redirect, but it didn't say the place hosted the first gas chamber in Nazi German history. I will remove the paper and this discussion.Philosopher81sp (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jacob Gotts:, a user asked to remove what he believes to be something like a duplication of content. Effectively, the sentence "Grafeneck was the first Nazi institution to be transformed in a gas chamber and crematorium" is just capitalized in the WP article titled Grafeneck Euthanasia Centre which has a redirect at the top of the page. I noted it, but also I believed it would be appropriate to report that information in the current WP article, which is unsourced. It is a case of divergent opinions, ll of which are legitimately argumented. So, to avoid not well-timed and less productive discussion, I rollbacked my edit, reply to the wiki-colleague and then removed the discussion which could appear an undue sponsorship for a paper that I no interest to present, with the unique exception of the improvement of the encyclopedia.

Finally, I ask to do the same, namely to delete the questioned row and its source, as well as the current discussion which may be read as undue WP:promotional content. I apologize to have done it by myself, but it was the easiest solution not to overload your administrative work.Philosopher81sp (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this being the single reference for an article that's otherwise about a village in Germany might be WP:UNDUE, but removing it causes the article to become completely unsourced. Is it possible to find another reference to the village's existence/etc? {$\mathbb {JPG}$} 21:54, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

It is a tad tricky.

I tried to find a good ref from the German WP (the most obvious source), but it redirects to

Gomadingen ist ein Luftkurort im Großen Lautertal im Landkreis Reutlingen, der vor allem durch das Haupt- und Landgestüt Marbach und durch Schloss Grafeneck bekannt ist. Gomadingen ist mit 85 % seiner Gemarkung Teil des Biosphärengebiets Schwäbische Alb.

It thus seems that this Grafeneck is just a Schloss in the larger Luftkurort.

Please check the RSes there in DE WP then and do the needful. Also, no need to delete the discussion hereinabove: nothing wrong with it, as it concerns the article in question.

Zezen (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)