This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
Zyklon B is not a disinfectant and has no disinfecting properties.
The German wartime guidelines and procedure for using Zyklon B was a 2-page double sided document given the document title "NI-9912" in the postwar Nuremberg Trials. During the war these guidelines and procedures were mass printed and sent throughout German and German occupied territories for them to use for Zyklon fumigations.
There are plenty of copies to google around for; but this one webpage on Robert Faurisson's blog has both the German copy of the 4 pages and a very good English translation in 6 pages:
At the very end of the first section it clearly states:
"Bakterian werden durch Blausäure nicht vernichtet"
or in English:
"Prussic acid does not kill bacteria"
Hydrogen cyanide is not a disinfectant and has never been used as a disinfectant because it is useless as a disinfectant.
I am therefore replacing all instances of "disinfect" with "disinfest" in this wikipedia page.
While it is true that there are many persons incorrectly claiming that Zyklon is a disinfectant; they are all wrong and are quite confused on this matter. The "disinfecting department" handled delousing in wartime Germany - delousing is NOT "disinfecting" though - and this is probably why so many people incorrectly use the term "disinfect". It is categorically undeniably incorrect though because neither hydrocyanic acid (liquid) nor hydrogen cyanide gas has any effect on germs (nor cyanide salts for that matter - that handles liquid, gas, and solid ;) ). I have little doubt that the instances of the word "disinfect" in this article are mistranslations of the German word for disinfest.
I am unable to edit the head portion which states:
"Uses included delousing clothing and disinfecting ships, warehouses, and trains"
"Disinfecting" things would mean scrubbing them with bleach or Lysol or something. Zyklon is a substrate with HCN adsorbed on to it that evaporates off in use - fumigating the area around it with HCN. The HCN has no effect on microorganisms but is very toxic to larger organisms like lice, rats, people, etc. Someone needs to change this instance of "disinfecting" above with "disinfesting". Zyklon is of course a pesticide - not a disinfectant.
Thank you for fixing this. Sometimes one is so focused on certain aspects of an article that mistakes like that one become effectively invisible. Incidentally, if you create an account, you can set your preferences so that a first-paragraph Edit link is displayed. Rivertorch's Evil Twin (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're partially incorrect- HCN could be considered an antifungal agent. The term "disinfectant" doesn't necessarily equate to "antibacterial". A source sums it up as follows: "This regulation, which is typical of secondary metabolism, manifests itself during the transition from exponential to stationary growth phase. Cyanide produced by P. fluorescens strain CHA0 has an ecological role in that this metabolite accounts for part of the biocontrol capacity of strain CHA0, which suppresses fungal diseases on plant roots. Cyanide can also be a ligand of hydrogenases in some anaerobic bacteria that have not been described as cyanogenic. However, in this case, as well as in other situations, the physiological function of cyanide is unknown." See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10763748/. I would therefore submit that the changes should be reverted for that reason alone. 108.235.248.227 (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have again undone the addition of this image. While I appreciate Raquel Baranow's change to the caption, the Commons information page for the file says "Dachau camp, Zyklon-B dispenser of a disinfection chamber". Can we be confident that the dispenser shown in the image was in fact used for non-lethal purposes? If not, I object to the use of the image because it is potentially misleading to readers. @Massimiliano Lincetto: (Pinging the user who uploaded the file, but with little hope; he's not active on en.wp.) RivertorchFIREWATER23:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm uneasy with this as well. It's not promising that a reverse image search immediately turned it up on a lot of holocaust denial sites... Fyddlestix (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was a lousy image anyway but this article lacks any mention of the Zyklon gas circulation device used in the disinfestation (delousing) facility. I've been trying to trace the copyright on the diagram that explains how this circulation device works. Basically, as you can see in the diagram, you put a can in a compartment, turn a crank that opens the can, the Zyklon granules spill onto a plate and a blower warms and circulates the gas in the delousing chamber. Afterwards the gas is expelled through a chimney and the clothing is removed in the chamber. Here's sources for the image of the Zyklon dispenser. 12, doesn't look like either image is copyrighted. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? You're providing links to Holocaust denial sites because...sorry, I can't come up with a valid reason. Either your account is compromised or someone needs to go through your contributions with a fine-tooth comb and see what else you've been up to. RivertorchFIREWATER05:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously such delousing chambers did exist, but we have no proof of what we're looking at in this particular photo other than the uploader's description. Given its location in Dachau we need more than the uploader's say-so that this facility was for de-lousing rather than killing people. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's another good reason to not include the image: other than a brief mention in the History section that the product had to be used in an enclosed space, we have no sourced prose present in the article on fumigation chambers, so the image lacks context. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, can we use the references (Zyklon technical manuals) I cited, above as the text for describing these fumigation chambers? Article should have a whole section describing these fumigation chambers. Raquel Baranow (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. We need references to actual fumigation chambers and their use (solely for fumigation, not for other things). You've been around long enough to understand WP:SYNTH, please re-read it. The manual isn't sufficient. Acroterion(talk)22:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those are actual Zyklon B fumigation chamber manuals describing their use, have you looked at the sources I linked to above?! It's not SYNTH, it's a technical manual describing how it works, I've seen tech manuals for refs lots of times. If anything it's a primary source but where else are you expected to learn how it works, it's a very small field, not something you would read about in Popular Mechanics. Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly is SYNTH to use a technical manual to discuss fumigation chambers at death camps using the product manual. You need real sources describing the employment of fumigation at death camps. Do you have any evidence that "fumigation chambers" existed anywhere else? Do you have any evidence that separate fumigation chambers existed at concentration camps? Where are those sources? Acroterion(talk)00:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Zyklon B. The manuals I cited were not intended for "death camps" but practical use. Again, did you look at the sources?! Nevertheless, I found another source (see subsection, below) but would still like to use the tech manuals.
I'm sure you're aware that Holocaust deniers like to claim that gas chambers were merely fumigation chambers. I'm also sure you're aware that Zyklon B is notable solely for its use in killing people, not lice. As others have noted, fumigation-only chambers certainly existed - at concentration and death camps. We must insist on detailed, high-quality sources that describe fumigation chambers clearly and specifically in the context of concentration camps and death camps, unless you can find instances where such measures were used elsewhere. Your section below is a start, but should not be dropped into the article free of context. I am not in favor of using primary sources on this topic - we must insist on context via reliable historical works. Acroterion(talk)02:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So why are you insisting on using context-free product information when there are secondary sources available? You seem to have no understanding of the importance of context for this subject. I've seen far too many edits by holocaust deniers claiming that the death chambers were delousing facilities to demand less than exemplary sourcing and writing, with clear reference to the full weight of the true importance of Zyklon B as a topic. Acroterion(talk)11:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Zyklon delousing chambers, proposed new section to article
Here's a RS and proposed outline for a new section to the article (feel free to reformat):
One system of delousing using Zyklon B consisted of eight adjacent 10 cubic-meter gas chambers with gas-tight doors on each end. Infested clothes went in one end and fumigated clothes came out the clean end. A radiator heated the chamber, a fan inside circulated the gas. Fumigation took 60-90 minutes followed by ventilating the chamber. Source: "Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp", Michael Berenbaum, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Indiana University Press, 1998 P 213
It has to do with context. First, you add an image that's purportedly of a Zyklon B canister purportedly used for non-murderous purposes at a death camp. Then you post a comment linking to pages with bizarre fringe content, including Holocaust denial bullshit. Now you source a statement about non-murderous use of Zyklon B to a book about another death camp. Perhaps you see why that sequence might raise a red flag or two. RivertorchFIREWATER04:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are over-reacting, Rivertorch. If I understand Raquel Baranow correctly, she is saying that the Nazis used Zyklon B for disinfestation as well as for killing people, not instead of for killing people so this is not holocaust denial. The quote from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum seems to back up this use for disinfestation. Roberttherambler (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.rodoh.us cannot be considered a reliable source for use on this wiki. Mazal was a collector, not a historian, so I don't think that's a high quality scholarly resource either. Besides, the point that the Germans used Zyklon B for de-lousing is already covered at the bottom of the "Corporate structure and marketing" section. We don't need a photo to illustrate it, in my opinion. I think it should stay out, as it looks like we are implying that de-lousing garments was all it was used for, which is not the case. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. No one is denying that Zyklon B had nonlethal uses, but those uses have nothing to do with the infamy of the product. Choosing to illustrate the article with the image of innocent disinfestation apparatus at Dachau would be deliberately putting a gloss on both the chemical and the camp, and that's completely unacceptable. (In policy terms, it's undue weight.) RivertorchFIREWATER16:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"I think you are over-reacting, Rivertorch." -- ad hominem "If I understand Raquel Baranow correctly" -- you don't. "this is not holocaust denial" -- it definitely is. It's what that user does (and part of why she has been indefinitely banned ... not for the first time; she's been at this for over a decade). -- Jibal (talk) 07:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering about this change. First, the edit summary says that "pesticide" could be misconstrued, and I'm not 100% sure I understand that. Second, most (all?) products containing a significant amount of cyanide are potentially poisonous, so it seems almost redundant to say. Third, if the original purpose of the product was pesticide, I think it makes sense to say that. Pinging Roy Bateman. RivertorchFIREWATER12:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello User:Rivertorch - surely the article does mention its original (mostly discontinued) use as a pesticide further down in the article. I was rather concerned about the use of 'pesticide' in the context of concentration camps: to spell it out, I suppose that the Nazis considered that Jews and homosexuals were 'pests' (and outrageously such people are still around). Not quite sure about your second point - why is 'poison' redundant? - it is all down to dosage of course (many fruit in the genus Prunus contain cyanide!). Brgds Roy Bateman (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone your change. The word "pesticide" is more accurate than "poison". The product was manufactured as a pesticide and put to use to kill people in Auschwitz and elsewhere. I don't think the reader will be led to believe from this that the people killed in this way were pests. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have further edited the first 2 paras. The product was indeed originally manufactured as a pesticide (this is very adequately explained in the 2nd para), but is notorious for being used by the Nazis for genocide, not pest management. Conflating the two in these circumstances is highly inappropriate I think.Roy Bateman (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the word "pesticide" back to the first paragraph. Two people have objected to its removal so it best stay in unless you can get consensus to take it out. Per the WP:BRD cycle, that's what you are supposed to do when your edit is challenged. The product was created as a pesticide and continued to be used for that purpose until production ceased. It was even used as a pesticide for many years in the United States from early days until they were no longer able to get it in that country (1943). — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that wording Diannaa - I hope you agree that it is an improvement on the original. Since it is now obsolete as a pesticide, I have included it under 'Chemical weapons' - and propose a new category: 'Obsolete pesticides' (in my opinion, some WP pages on pesticides are also misleading). What do you think? Brgds Roy Bateman (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't think it's an improvement on the original. Here's the relevant diff. The earlier wording stated precisely and concisely what the Zyklon B was, what it consisted of, its original and legitimate purpose, and where and when it was invented, then immediately notes the reason for its infamy. The new wording calls it a "formulation" (true but unacceptably vague), mentions only one ingredient and does so with two unnecessary adjectives and an adverb, then goes on to place the word "pesticide" in the same sentence that introduces its victims, which arguably heightens the objection that you mentioned to begin with: the linking of the idea of "pests" with those victims. (Of course the linkage is there. Can there be any doubt that the Nazi regime responsible for the atrocities involving Zyklon B considered its victims subhuman?) I guess there's almost always room for improvement, but I still don't seen a clearly articulated reason for making these changes. I'm pretty sure we can find consensus here. I think it would be helpful you'd detail exactly what you think is wrong about the earlier wording. RivertorchFIREWATER18:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing the with the new, I agree that the old wording is better, as it contains details not present in the new version, such as the year and place of creation and a complete list of ingredients. I have restored the old wording as there's at present no consensus for any of these changes. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So Diannaa: having reached what I thought was a consensus 2 edits ago, you appear to have changed your mind!! ... and by the way, having restored repetition of "cautionary eye irritant and one of several adsorbents such as diatomaceous earth." in the first and second paragraphs does not reflect well on your editorial abilities. To answer User:Rivertorch: I found this page via a link from a featured article on concentration camps and, call me over-sensitive if you will, I still think that the original wording with a high emphasis on 'pesticides' could easily be misused in a racist narrative. However, this misses the main point which is that Zyklon-B has not been used in the 21st century as a pesticide (correct me if I am wrong) and it is notable for its use in the gas chambers. I have not checked, but I do not dispute the sequence in the 2nd para. - and note that following the original development as a pesticide, it was used for chemical warfare in WW1. Subsequent development of Zyklon B provided an easier-to-handle formulation of HCN for the Nazis. Over-use of the word 'pesticide' in emotive contexts such as this, is also very unhelpful for those of us who have to teach modern pest management. Roy Bateman (talk) 04:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Roy Bateman, I'm not sure how best to respond. If I understand you correctly, you believe that noting Zyklon B's original purpose in the lead sentence will somehow enable racist narratives. I don't get that at all. If I thought it were true, I suppose I'd support removing it, but you'll need to be much clearer about how that would work. In any event, I have reverted your latest edit, for which there was not consensus—only your preference for it and Diannaa's saying she "can live with" it. I can live with it, too, but I'd much rather not. I expressed some confidence that consensus could be reached, but that will require some patience on your part, and edit warring will not help matters. (Neither will disparaging a fellow Wikipedian's editing skills. Diannaa is one of our most experienced and capable editors, but no one deserves gratuitous criticism like that.) If you restore your preferred version again, I will request full protection of the article. RivertorchFIREWATER05:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rivertorch - I am not going to waste any any more time here (and certainly won't be edit warring) on specious arguments with a couple of editors, working under pseudonyms, claiming "consensus". Who are you? Why is it "gratuitous" to point out that (you as well) are restoring repetition in the introductory paragraphs? You are twisting my arguments - of course I am not saying this "will somehow enable racist narratives": merely pointing out that there is a risk here and that words should be chosen carefully. Why is "pesticide" so important to you? I must leave it to your good taste (and I hope the opinions others, in due course) to reflect on these points. Roy Bateman (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I guess. I confess I'm disappointed that you're unwilling to engage in the usual sort of back-and-forth discussion that can lead to consensus, but that's your choice. I twisted nothing, only asked for clarification, in the same way that I asked many an instructor back in the day (albeit not one of pest management, it's true). In most cases, that process was productive and the instructor didn't consider it a waste of time. Is it possible, I wonder, whether the professional activities to which you allude may be creating a low-level conflict of interest in your editing of this article? As for me, I freely confess that I distrust and dislike synthetic pesticides and, many years ago, I advocated for the curtailing of their use. In part because of my past advocacy, I avoid editing in that topic area. I've made an exception here because I really don't think of this as a pesticide article; Zyklon B is not notable because of its original purpose, and it's no longer manufactured anyway. Beyond that, and anything else I choose to share, who I am is irrelevant: like over 90 percent of Wikipedians, I choose pseudonymity, partly because I think Wikipedia works best when consensus is based on the strength of arguments, not on professional qualifications. Britannica uses the other approach, of course. RivertorchFIREWATER15:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As the general rule most "pesticides" tend to also be "poisons" by their inherent nature. Example- Rat poison (which contains Sodium Warfin as an active ingredient) is a pesticide as well as a poison, So is Nicotine- which is a poison in amounts smaller than HCN, and is routinely used in diluted form as an insecticidal pesticide in agriculture. Therefore, it would be incorrect to differentiate between a pesticide and a poison for the purposes of the article, because it would read in an unwieldy and over-technical way. 108.235.248.227 (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article would greatly benefit from the proper inclusion of this information in the lede and history sections. The use of Zyklon B on humans is documented in El Paso/Juarez long before WW2, with German scientists directly citing the US' immigration programs as a model for "disinfection" of death camps. The article as it currently reads misleads readers into believing the phenomenon was mainly if not entirely isolated to Germany. -TheMiddleWest (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains incorrect information. it states that "they used it to kill roughly 1.1 million people in gas chambers at Auschwitz-Birkenau, Majdanek, and elsewhere" However, it neglects to mention that most of the Jews that were killed in the holocaust were in fact killed by Carbon Monoxide Gas, not HCN. For example, the gas chambers at Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka were Carbon Monoxide chambers not HCN chambers, and it appears that the only chambers that were equipped for HCN / Zyklon-B were those at Auchwitz-Birkenau, Stutthof, Mauthausen, Sachsenhausen, and Ravensbrück. Then there was the euthenasia programe and the Gassing vans which didn't use HCN either. I was unable to find documentation that describes the issue in detail with any of the other camps. See https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/gassing-operations as a good starting point, but this needs to be changed because it posits an inaccurate idea given the generally accepted historical consensus. 108.235.248.227 (talk) 03:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The number 1.1 million includes only those killed using Zyklon B. The total number of Jews killed on the Holocaust was around 6 million. The remainder were killed using carbon monoxide exhaust from diesel engines, shot by the Einsatzgruppen, or killed via other methods. I've added a note about the total number of Jews killed in The Holocaust, but to add details of all the methods of killing at all the camps is too much detail for this article.— Diannaa (talk) 10:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, 108.234.248.227, Lublin-Majdanek did use Zyklon-B in its killing apparatus. So, we get 1.2+ million killed by carbon monoxide at Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka, then 1.1-1.2 million at Birkenau and Majdanek using Zyklon-B (though this total death toll would also include beating, starvation, exposure, disease, and experimentation deaths). Sacxpert (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few lines in this article that either don't seem to be relevant to this article in particular, or are a misrepresentation of facts:
Hydrogen cyanide was not banned because the German Empire "used a similar product" during WW1. All major parties in the war used poison gases, and they were all banned in the Geneva Protocol of 1925. In fact, the Central Powers never used any chemical weapons based on hydrogen cyanide; only the French, American, and Italian militaries did.
Also, the line about the 6 million Jewish casualties has no relevance to this article. They were not all murdered using Zyklon B (the actual death toll of Zyklon B use is listed in the sentence just before it) so the inclusion of that number is just superfluous, and is somewhat harmful to the neutrality of the article.
I understand that this article is locked because it attracts controversy and trolling, but these are things that ought to be cleaned up if you ask me.
I have checked the source for the statement that Zyklon A was banned and the source does indeed support the statement that the Germans used it. The source says: The components had been used in poison gases for the German army and thus soon were banned by the victorious Allies. It doesn't mention the Geneva Protocol, so we can't add that, unless you have a source. The reason we include a statement that ~6 million Jews were killed is because we have repeatedly had people stating that our figure of 1.1 million is incorrect because 6 million Jews died. So to clear up the confusion, we include both numbers so readers will be aware that while 6 million Jews were killed, most of them were killed by other means.— Diannaa (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The line about the 6 million Jews killed definitely has no relevance to this article, for these reasons:
It is misleading (Jews aren't the only victims of the Holocaust)
It is not appropriate (this article isn't about the Holocaust so a statistic about the Holocaust on its own in a closed phrase has no place here unless it links to such an article)
It is inconsistently worded and will lead to confusion (the words are "A total of around 6 million..." -- a total of around something isn't a total, is it? are we here to provide information and knowledge or to just randomly add things in because we can't make things clear initially?)
You shouldn't add extra words to prevent ambiguity. Indeed it usually results in more ambiguity. Instead I recommend rewording the 1.1 million line from:
The product is notorious for its use by Nazi Germany during the Holocaust to murder approximately 1.1 million people in gas chambers installed at Auschwitz-Birkenau, Majdanek, and other extermination camps.
to:
The product is notorious for its use in gas chambers by Nazi Germany during the Holocaust; it is attributed to approximately 1.1 million of the x.x million murders recorded at Auschwitz-Birkenau, Majdanek, and other extermination camps.
Off-topic a bit, but I think the gas was also used in portable gas chambers, so maybe remove the part about the camps or add the portable chambers too.--Vcyatc (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Zyklon B needs water or heat to be activated ?- if correct how was water or heat applied in the gassing killing chambers ? Should this precise information be included ?--— ⦿⨦⨀TumadoireachtTalk/Stalk09:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's Hydrogen cyanide, a poisonous gas. All they had to do was open the containers and dump the pellets into the chamber for the toxic gas to be released. "After the doors were shut, SS men dropped Zyklon B pellets through vents in the roof or holes in the side of the chamber. The victims were dead within 20 minutes.[42] "— Diannaa (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gases aren't pellets, so the suggestion to be more specific is valid. Most people don't understand, and I think an explanation of exactly what takes place is appropriate. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the boiling point of this chemical is 78 degrees F. The highest average monthly temperature in Auschwitz, for instance, was 76 degrees F. So there is really some confusion about how exactly this was supposed to work from a scientific perspective. Most of the year it is between 30-50 degrees there, so there is no way the pellets would turn to gas. 2600:8800:2918:A600:4C5E:1154:DAF2:B1ED (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the first paragraph the article states that it was used to kill 6 million Jews; later on it states 6 million people, mostly Jews.
I propose changing the first paragraph to match the wording of the latter, as it was not just Jews who met this dreadful fate. 82.23.134.170 (talk) 10:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't say it was used to kill 6 million Jews. It says it was used to kill 1.1 million people; I'm not sure why we even need the "A total of around 6 million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust" sentence; people can quite well click on The Holocaust for a lot more detail about all of the victims. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇15:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Suggest removal of the line "A total of around 6 million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust" from the first paragraph. While it's correct information, it's not really relevant given what is already stated in the paragraph. 51.6.213.11 (talk) 13:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not remove it, because to do so gives some readers the impression that only 1.1 million total were killed. i.e. it provides context. — Diannaa (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"A total of around 6 million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust."
Why is this in the introduction? It fails WP:LEDECITE because no citation for this material is given anywhere else in the article. It fails MOS:INTRO because it's not mentioned anywhere else in the article at all. It's off topic, because it's talking about people not killed with Zyklon B — whether Jews or not. Finally, it's potentially misleading, because the reader could infer that all 1.1 million were Jews, which is either erroneous or a huge assertion that would need detailed sourcing to prove that there wasn't a single exception. 175.39.61.121 (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the boiling point of this chemical is 78 degrees F. The highest average monthly temperature in Auschwitz, for instance, was 76 degrees F. So there is really some confusion about how exactly this was supposed to work from a scientific perspective. Most of the year it is between 30-50 degrees there, so there is no way the pellets would turn to gas. 2600:8800:2918:A600:4C5E:1154:DAF2:B1ED (talk) 07:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. Supported by the reliable source.
2. WP:NPOV does not require absolute neutrality, but the presentation of all significant viewpoints. We generally switch from neutral forms such as 'death' or 'kill' to 'murdered' or 'perpetrated' when a competent judicial authority has found the perpetrators guilty of the act in question. The Nuremberg trials met this standard. Melmann13:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the biochemical mode of action as a pesticide the same as for killing humans? The former is what is relevant in the product's early history. jnestorius(talk)13:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search reveals that there's some journal articles on this topic, but they're paywalled. I think the answer would depend on whether by "pests" you mean mammals such as rats, or other creatures such as insects. I think the action would be the same for all mammals that use ATP and hemoglobin. --Diannaa (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)