This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
but there is little evidence[citation needed] that the Nazis planned to systematically target them for genocide as was the case for the groups above.
With regards to the Soviet POWs, that may well be due to the fact that the German command had not allowed for food for all those captured, thus all the hundreds of thousands of Soviet POWs that died from starvation would have no need for transportation to a death camp. I think Hitler might have also mentioned his desire for lebensraum once or twice, and the desire to wipe the Bolsheviks from the face of the earth.
It is however, in my eyes not part of the Holocaust, but those Russian POWs, among the first killed at Auschwitz, were part of the Holocaust. Londo06 03:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, but what about the eyes that actually matter: they eyes of reliable and verifiable sources? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
That is true. If they were at Auschwitz then one could consider them part of the Holocaust. Besides, let's just say that Hitler did take over Europe. In his quest to create a "perfect race," he most likely would have tried to eliminate as many Russian POWs in the end as Jews. They would have been part of the Holocaust too. The fact that he didn't get the chance to doesn't mean it wasn't his plan. But if you don't want to include them, just list the death toll the the other groups of people, Russian POWs, Communists etc., and say that 5 million other people died but not as part of the Holocaust. But it's really from where you see it. MaulYoda 20:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Comes down to the act versus thought argument - 1. act being Jews and many others = shared holocaust, 2. thought being race laws, etc against Jews and the (acts against communists) = Jewish holocaust and the acknowledgement of desire to eliminate communists in the east and at home, along with the other groups.
The act is the most common view today with the opening up of Russian files since the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the declassification of British files. 90.192.37.118 21:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Btw, I talked to the elderly Polish couple the other day. They said the worst thing they seen was the totally miserable column of the Soviet POWs, and that the Germans warned the locals to not give them any food under the pain of death. I think these old folks were "reliable sources", especially since they didn't like the Soviet Union at all. --HanzoHattori 12:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
How many Soviet POWs were repatriated?159.105.80.141 12:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
6 million? It was 12 million
12 million people died in the NAZI bastards persecution of Romani and Jews during WW2 other races people were also persecuted and exterminated. How dare you downplay the holocaust like it was something that only happened to jews when everybody knows that more Roma people than jews were killed in WW2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 10:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
MadeinFinland, this is patent nonsense. Your ranting is blatantly racist. Dinlo juk 13:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Please use civility when editing. If you want to discuss euthanasia of Gypsies, and can reference and substantiate your words, then start and article on it and stop vandalising the Holocaust article. Going by your obvious lack of encyclopaedic skill and ability to maintain an adult discussion, I think a blog far away from Wikipedia is where you belong. --Hayden5650 11:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Got ya but when we are are dealing with retarded condescending idiots?
Um, like, from the start? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Like we are all equal here, never heard that before? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 21:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
This article is currently up for for good article review. When consensus is reached editors will decide whether to list it as a good article, if you have read and understand the criteria feel free to comment here. Quadzilla99 17:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
This article is LONG, it somehow needs to be split into sub-sections, it is under that criteria right now, isn't it? 69.158.74.118 01:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Just like Marlon Brando said.....
Writing
Paul, please don't keep reverting the lead. Your addition is problematic for two reasons: first, because most scholars and members of the public regard the Holocaust as equivalent to the Final Solution. You may think they ought not to, but they do. Secondly, your sentence basically says "some scholars do include others, but some do not," which isn't good writing, because it's self-evident (obviously if only some do, then clearly some do not). It's better writing and more informative simply to say, as the current lead does, "Many scholars do not include these groups in the definition of the Holocaust, defining it as the genocide of the Jews, or what the Nazis called the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" ("Die Endlösung der Judenfrage")." SlimVirgin(talk) 09:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not my sentence, but a sentence arrived at by several editors. It is not for you to assert what is "better writing", nor is it a matter what I think people should think but what the evidence suggests. See section below (added separately due to edit conflict). Paul B 09:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
A brief look at the discussions above will demomstate that Slim Virgin's preferred edit causes unnecessary dispute and is not even consistent with the footnotes given, vis that the "Columbia guide to the holocaust" says,
"The Holocaust is commonly defined as the murder of more than 5,000,000 Jews by the Germans in World War II." Also see "The Holocaust," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2007: "the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II. The Germans called this "the final solution to the Jewish question."
Sine the EB clearly says and millions of others it is inaccurate to use this to claim that only Jews are included on ther EB's definition. I do not have access to the Columbia book, but the contents page here strongly suggests that the quotation does not reflect the content of the book as a whole:
Contents
Introduction
I. Historical Overview
Historical Overview
Excluding the Racially Inferior, 1933--1939
War and the Beginning of Genocide, 1939--1941
The Final Solution, 1941--1944
The End of the Holocaust, 1944--1945
Aftermath and Legacies
II. Problems and Interpretations
Defining the Holocaust
The Gypsies
The Mentally and Physically Handicapped
Soviet Prisoners of War
Polish and Soviet Civilians
Political Prisoners, Religious Dissenters, and Homosexuals
Conclusion
I deplore any attempt to minimise the central and distinctive importance of the genocidal aims towards the Jews specifically. There is always a big danger that these lists of victims lead to the impression that Jews were not special. They were, absolutely. But we also have to be fair and accurate when we make claims about sources. Incidentally I far prefer the specific 220,000-500,000 to the rather vague "up to half a million". "Up to" is one of those almost meaningless phrases beloved of journalists, designed to make the high figure prominent and make the lower one vanish from sight. Paul B 09:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The reason I adjusted the number of Roma victims of the Holocaust to "up to half a million" is that it more accurately represents current thought. SlimVirgin claims that it puts undue emphasis on a minority POV and cites an out-of-date pamphlet from the USHMM, which gives a figure of 220,000 to 500,000. Going to the source of this data, Sybil Milton, we find that what she actually stated was:
"(...)based on current knowledge and historical evidence at least a minimum of 220,000 Roma and Sinti (a subgroup of Roma) were killed in the Holocaust and that the figure is probably higher, possibly closer to 500,000."
There has been a trend to minimize the number of Roma victims of the Holocaust, and without getting into cynical speculation as to why this is, it's interesting to note how the USHMM currently represents Milton's work:
"It is not known precisely how many Roma were killed in the Holocaust. While exact figures or percentages cannot be ascertained, historians estimate that the Germans and their allies killed between 25 and 50 percent of all European Roma. Of the approximately one million Roma living in Europe before the war, up to 220,000 were killed."
Far be it for me to point out that 220,000 does not come close to representing 50% of Roma living in Europe before the war. The official Nazi party census of 1939 put the figure at 2,000,000, which is almost certainly an underestimation, particularly given the current Roma population of 8 to 10 million.Dinlo juk 12:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I've no idea what you mean by "out of date". Has new evidence come to light since then? The quotation from Milton gives 220,00-500,000, so what's the problem with giving that range? "possibly closer to 500,000" is not an endorsement of the higher figure, only that it is "possibly" closer to the higher than the lower one - e.g. possibly 400,000 rather than 300,000. The only reason I can think that "half a million" is preferred to 500,000 is that the former contains the word "million". We shouldn't play journalistic tricks with readers. We should give information with precision where we can. Paul B 14:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I used "half a million" for two reasons. One, that it is in line with the style used elsewhere in the introduction. Two, that the most commonly used phrase amongst Romani historians is "between half a million and one and a half million". By all means change it to "500,000", but all other figures should be quoted in numerical format to be consistent.
The pamphlet is out of date in that the USHMM no longer appears to agree with the figures it quotes. It also does not take into account research conducted since Sybil Milton's estimate, such as the chapter by Ian Hancock in The Historiography of the Holocaust, quoted in the reference I gave.
On the question of precision, such an ideal is not attainable in relation to the Roma victims of the Holocaust. On one hand, we do not have the luxury of comparing accurate censuses from before and after the war. On the other hand, unlike the Jewish people, the Roma were often massacred outside of the death camps, and those that were gassed were often counted under unspecific labels. Dinlo juk 15:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not about "numerical format" it's about clarity. Using zeros becomes impracticable after a certain point, because the eye loses track, but it's more readable for lower figures. Giving the range as a whole is more concise and readable in numerical format ("two hundred and twenty thousand to five hundred thousand" v "220,000-500,000"). The reference to Hancock (who always maximises Roma figures as you know) did not, as I recall, give new evidence for estimates. Of course precision is not achievable - even for Jewish victims - but precision from a scholarly point of view means giving the range according to the best estimates. Paul B 15:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Paul, every single one of the books on my shelves about the Holocaust is about the Final Solution. The EB lead you mentioned above is:
Holocaust: Hebrew Sho'ah, Yiddish and Hebrew Hurban (“Destruction”) the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II. The Germans called this “the final solution to the Jewish question.” The word Holocaust is derived from the Greek holokauston, a translation of the Hebrew word 'olah, meaning a burnt sacrifice offered whole to God. This word was chosen because in the ultimate manifestation of the Nazi killing program—the extermination camps—the bodies of the victims were consumed whole in crematoria and open fires.
Anyway, please take the point about the writing. Your addition didn't actually say anything. SlimVirgin(talk) 09:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
To clarify my point about the writing, my version: "Many scholars do not include these groups in the definition of the Holocaust, defining it as the genocide of the Jews, or what the Nazis called the 'Final Solution of the Jewish Question' ..."
Your version: "While some scholars include some or all of these groups in the definition of the Holocaust, others restrict its definition to the genocide of the Jews, or what the Nazis called the 'Final Solution of the Jewish Question' ..."
What additional information do your extra words impart? SlimVirgin(talk) 09:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
What additional information do yours impart?
My version doesn't have extra words. Yours does. My question is what extra thing does your version say with the extra words? I'm arguing that it says nothing different, so if I'm wrong, please tell me what it says that's different. SlimVirgin(talk) 23:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I repeat it is not mine. It has very few extra words. The difference is the relevant phrase "some or all" indicating - concisely - a variety of positions. I also think that that contrast of positive/negative rather than negative/negative creates a better balance. Yours emphases not including. Paul B 23:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not about what is added, but about what is a the most accurate phrasing. I do wish you would stop calling this my edit. In fact the specific phrasing was created by Dinlo juk. What appears on your shelves is neither here nor there. Yes, I have read the EB lead - indeed the whole EB article. You have simply added a here a passage about the origin of the word holocaust, which has no bearing on the issue. It is also, as it happens, misleading. Though holocauston was used to translate Hebrew in the Septuagint, it was not created for that purpose, but described pagan Greek sacrifices. Its use to refer to mass murder, destruction etc in the 20th century was initially unrelated to Judaism. Paul B 10:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The point of the EB quote was to show that they call the Holocaust the "Final Solution." SlimVirgin(talk) 23:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
That's not an answer, since that "point" was already there in the blockquoted passage I added above from the footnote. You have again not replied to the central issue raised by me above. Paul B 23:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I think it needs to be said right up top, as most people see 'The Holocaust' as the Nazi's murderous atrocities inside the camps and the Final Solution as the specific targeting and desired eradication of the Jewish race. Ownership of the Holocaust needs to be addressed as two people can have be talking about two different thematics inside the same article. Alexsanderson83 11:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You have no more idea about what "most people" think than I do. Paul B 15:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I was referring to mainly the social understanding of the term 'The Holocaust' within Britain, I'm afraid I cannot impart knowledge of the overriding views from beyond my own borders. Alexsanderson83 01:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
People who read books about the Holocaust are in a position to say what most writers about the Holocaust define it as. SlimVirgin(talk) 23:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Try replying to comments directed at you. And try to understand them first. Paul B 23:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean. Look, the issue is very simple. If "many" scholars believe X, it means not all scholars believe X. Therefore, there is no need to say some believe X but some do not believe X. It isn't good writing. It doesn't mean anything. To make the sentence more informative and more concise, it says "Many scholars exclude these groups from ..."
My question to you is what does your version say that mine does not say. SlimVirgin(talk) 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
It is indeed quite evident that you have no idea. If you had bothered to check the context you would uderstand that I was replying to Alexsanderson83. Perhaps you would bother to look at what this user is saying and what he has been attempting to before blundering in with remarks like the above. I have already anwered the last question. Paul B 23:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Why are you being so rude, as a matter of interest? Again, I am asking what your version says that mine does not say. Please be explicit. SlimVirgin(talk) 00:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
In response to your rude and frankly absurd remark about "people who read books about the holocaust". Paul B 06:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Before this deteriorates any further, could you say what additional information the extra words below impart? SlimVirgin(talk) 06:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I have already answered that. Paul B 07:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
In my view shorter is better here; the version on the right doesn't add any information, and it says it in more words. Jayjg (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, what a surprise to see you here. Note that it is shorter by precisely 7 words. If we are concerned about concision why do we need the Final Solution phrase in both English and German? And the word "between" can go. I have explained my reasons above, to which I have had no replies.
1. The footnotes do not support the assertion. Judging by the contents page the Columbia encyclopedia is not being accurately reopresented, but there is no copy in any local library IO can consult. However the EB clearly includes "millions of others" in its definition. SL has never addressed this fact.
2. The previous wording led to excessive argument here on the talk page, and an attempt by one user (possibly a sockpuppet of another) to delist it from good article status.
3. The wording I prefer balances exclusion and inclusion, whereas SL's solely emphasises exclusion.
I have made these points above, but they have not been addressed. Paul B 07:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Please stop being so aggressive; you're being almost belligerent. The point is that "some do this, but others do that" isn't good writing, and it isn't necessary because it gives us no additional information. That's all. SlimVirgin(talk) 07:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Saying I have made these points already is hardly aggressive. I repeat, you don't get to say by fiat what is good writing. Paul B 07:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what it would mean to say it by "fiat." It isn't good writing because there are words in the sentence doing no work, not to mention that it's a construction newbies are warned against. As for "what a surprise to see you here," Jay has made 93 edits to the article (to my 67 and your 27), and 28 to the talk page (to my 44 and your 103), so why shouldn't he be here? SlimVirgin(talk) 07:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The version on the left inappropriately emphasises the exclusion of groups and implies that the exclusive approach is more correct. The main reason that the Roma, for example, have been neglected so far in Holocaust research is that they have typically been an illiterate people. Unlike the Jewish people, who are typically well-educated, the Roma have not had scholars who could research their people's history. Jewish scholars naturally will concentrate on the suffering of their own people, and those that compile popular history books can only reflect the published work that is out there. Of course, there are those like Bauer, who still claim that the Holocaust was a uniquely Jewish experience, but they do not represent the majority. Dinlo juk 10:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that 10 times as many Jews as Roma were killed in the Holocaust, I would imagine the emphasis of Holocaust scholars on Jews would have much more to do with the fact that Hitler and his followers were obsessed with Jews, who they saw as vying with the Aryan race for world domination. They did not view the Roma that way, or other "races" they viewed as "inferior". For the Nazis the Holocaust was primarily about the Jews; that is the reason the Holocaust is primarily about the Jews for scholars as well. See Mein Kampf for more details. Jayjg (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Hitler and his buddies did a pretty good job on the Roma, considering they weren't obsessed with them. They managed to wipe out 25 to 50% of Roma overall in occupied territories, 80% in some areas. Dinlo juk 23:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they killed lots of Roma too, and lots of Poles, and all sorts of people. That doesn't affect what I said above. Jayjg (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
First, saying "many scholars do not include these groups ..." does not imply that it's right or wrong, and it's anyway not a question of right or wrong; it's simply a matter of definition. Secondly, you say yourself that "Unlike the Jewish people, who are typically well-educated, the Roma have not had scholars who could research their people's history." That seems to be confirming that the mainstream definition does not include them. You keep saying that Holocaust scholars such as Bauer do not represent the majority, but you offer no evidence. All the evidence that I can see — including the couple of dozen books on my shelves about the Holocaust, which were earlier scoffed at — says the opposite. We can dig up source after source after source if you like, but I hope that won't be necessary. In any event, please take the point about the writing. The two versions don't have different meanings. The longer version contains some waffle, introducing the dreaded "some think x, others think x" structure.
It's unfortunate that this is the kind of thing that's being focused on here, when you had an entire section in this article plagiarized from the Encyclopaedia Britannica sitting here for almost a month. SlimVirgin(talk) 19:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. It is unfortunate. However, I will direct you back towards the source you used, that of the USHMM, who most definitely represent the majority view and who use an inclusive approach. If the "some think this, some think that" structure bothers you, I propose we simply change the word "many" for "some". Dinlo juk 20:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You've produced no evidence that the USHMM represents the majority view. What they say in the lead to their book is that they have decided to include all victims. It was a decision they made for political and undoubtedly financial reasons. We're not here to reflect their decision as though we're an extension of them. This article should reflect the majority and significant minority scholarly views, in due proportion. As for changing many to some, it's not just some. It's most. "Many" is already a compromise. SlimVirgin(talk) 21:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
You yourself pointed to the USHMM as the majority view in a revert of one of my edits. The onus is on you to provide evidence that most scholars currently restrict the definition of the holocaust as the Jewish experience. I'll freely admit self-interest. I'm half-Romani and relatives of mine died in the holocaust (or did they? Was it just a coincidence they happened to be in the death camps at the time?). If this is an idle waste of time for you, I hope you've got the stamina to stick this out. Dinlo juk 23:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I've added other references. There are more if needed. SlimVirgin(talk) 04:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
There's no reason to guess that the USHMM made their decision to include all victims for political or financial reasons. It was a decision based on their in-house research, argued by their senior historian, Sybil Milton, who herself decried the judeocentric view of the holocaust in her article "The Context of the Holocaust" German Studies Review 13, 269-283. Dinlo juk 10:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Then write a section on it if you feel it should be addressed. It would make a good addition to the historiography section. You could write about expert v survivor discourse; the focus of the main scholars; who objects and why; which languages the primary-source material is in and whether that makes a difference. It would be very interesting if done well. SlimVirgin(talk) 20:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin
Paul B/Dinlo juk
Other groups were also persecuted and killed by the regime, including 220,000–500,000 Sinti and Roma (see Porajmos), as well as the disabled (see Action T4), homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Soviet POWs, Polish citizens, and political prisoners. Many scholars do not include these groups in the definition of the Holocaust, defining it as the genocide of the Jews, or what the Nazis called the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" ("Die Endlösung der Judenfrage").
Other groups were also persecuted and killed by the regime, including between 220,000 and 500,000 Sinti and Roma (see Porajmos), as well as the disabled (see Action T4), homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Soviet POWs, Polish citizens, and political prisoners. While some scholars include some or all of these groups in the definition of the Holocaust, others restrict its definition to the genocide of the Jews, or what the Nazis called the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" ("Die Endlösung der Judenfrage").
This is what the British govt considers 'The Holocaust' to be. It is also the held position of many scholars along with the public. Think Ownership needs to be addressed up top. Alexsanderson83 21:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Holocaust Memorial Day’s aims are to:
Remember all victims of the Holocaust and Nazi persecution ; Jews, Roma and Sinti (Gypsies), East European civilians, Russian prisoners of war, trade unionists, communists, political opponents, disabled people, Jehovah’s Witnesses, gay men and lesbians and Black Germans
Ludicrously PC. That's an example of how bad these "inclusive" lists can be. How many "black Germans" were victims? I suggest the author reads Susan Samples, "African Germans in the Third Reich" in The African German Experience. Paul B 21:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
That's right. Mixed race offspiring of French Senegalese occupying troops in the Rhineland were sterilised. Other mixed race children outside the Rhineland were unaffected. No-one was murdered. Hardly a 'holocaust' by any meaningful use of the word. Statistically, as Samples shows, African-Germans had a higher chance of surviving than white "Aryan" Germans, because they were not enlisted. BTW, Hilter does not say it was a Jewish plot. He says it was a French plot, because the French had become a "negrified" people, apparently. Paul B 22:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Copyright violation
The entire second section was a copyvio, apparently taken word-for-word from the Encyclopaedia Britannicahere, unless they took it from us, which I doubt. The writing was POV and a bit too elaborate for Wikipedia. SlimVirgin(talk) 07:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The same user had made, somewhat worryingly, 91 edits to this article. SlimVirgin(talk) 03:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Writing again
Parts of this article read as though written for children, giving practically no information, and even verging on the offensive. For example:
The persecution and genocide included children, and victims were often tortured before being killed. Nazis carried out deadly medical experiments on prisoners, including children. The guards in the concentration camps carried out beatings and acts of torture on a daily basis. Some women (usually convicted prostitutes) worked in brothels for the guards and privileged prisoners. It has been argued that some were forced to do so.
Time permitting, I'll try to make a start on tidying it. SlimVirgin(talk) 20:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
1st paragraph sounds worse now, it really sounds that only Jews were part of the Holocaust, that would ride in the face of many people, included respected scholars. Beyond that I think it could do with a bit of refining for the sake of clarity. Something along the lines of the Holocaust is this. A second paragraph for the word in other cultures and languages. For such an important article it lacks the clarity and consensus to bring it up to a Featured Article standard, something which it should be when several key issues on this talk page are addressed. Londo06 20:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It's absurd to say the first paragraph sounds worse than the one I cited above. The first paragraph was written by an academic historian. The above reads as though aimed at 10-year-olds. We should try to get this thing well-written, well-referenced, and actually informative, and once that's done we can worry about the POV nuances at our leisure. SlimVirgin(talk) 21:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Londo06, please focus on the the overall article, and the writing in it, rather than your singular focus solely on the "ownership of the Holocaust" issue. Jayjg (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The overall article is suspect on the basis of ownership. Dinlo juk 22:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't see any evidence in the contribs of anyone trying to "own" it. Indeed, that's part of the problem. It looks as though it has suffered from too-many-editors syndrome. It's badly written, structureless, clichéd, and uninformative. SlimVirgin(talk)
You're missing the point. "Ownership" isn't about the article. "Ownership of the Holocaust" is a particular catch-phrase; google it and see what I mean. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
The only thing "suspect" are the editors who pretend that "ownership" is a significant issue. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course it is. Yehuda Bauer makes that much clear. 25% to 50% of Roma exterminated in the Holocaust, but that doesn't count, does it? Dinlo juk 23:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
No one is saying it doesn't count. We can add a section on the Roma. The point is to try to make the article more scholarly, rather than a collection of clichés or reflective of what some editors wish the definition was, rather than what it commonly is. I've added a section on the definition issue, written by Adam Carr. SlimVirgin(talk) 23:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
What some editors wish very clearly incledes you, since you choose to minimise evidence which you find uncongenial. Paul B 10:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm at a loss as to why SlimVirgin has removed my reference for the number of Roma victims of the Holocaust, which explains the figures used by the USHMM and presents an alternative POV by a respected Roma scholar, one who served on the US Holocaust Memorial Council. I'm also baffled that he/she replaced it with a pamphlet from a museum that he/she claimed did not demonstrably represent a mainstream POV. Dinlo juk 11:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Rather than making me guess, please say which reference you mean. SlimVirgin(talk) 11:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to assume good faith and that it just got caught up in the numerous edits you did yesterday. The reference was as follows...
Why would you assume anything other than good faith? SlimVirgin(talk) 20:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
"Most estimates for numbers of Roma victims of the Holocaust fall between 200,000 and 500,000, although figures ranging between 90,000 and 4 million have been proposed. Lower estimates do not include those killed in all Axis-controlled countries. A detailed study by the late Sybil Milton, formerly senior historian at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum gave a figure of at least a minimum of 220,000, probably higher, possibly closer to 500,000 (cited in Re. Holocaust Victim Assets Litigation (Swiss Banks) Special Master's Proposals, September 11, 2000). Ian Hancock, Director of the Program of Romani Studies and the Romani Archives and Documentation Center at the University of Texas at Austin, argues in favour of a higher figure of between 500,000 and 1,500,000 in his 2004 article, Romanies and the Holocaust: A Reevaluation and an Overview as published in Stone, D. (ed.) (2004) The Historiography of the Holocaust. Palgrave, Basingstoke and New York."
...or was there something that you found objectionable here? This is intended as a reference to the 220,000 to 500,000 figure. Dinlo juk 12:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Never mind! I see it further down in the article. Will read it and comment. Dinlo juk 14:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I turned that footnote into the basis of a section of its own. SlimVirgin(talk) 20:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
The article does need to be tightened up, properly structured and balanced. There appears to be some solid progress being made, long may it continue. Londo06 23:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
MadeinFinland
I've trying to start a copy edit, but MadeinFinland keeps reverting from under me, so I can't make any progress. Please stop it. It's causing a lot of confusion, because I'm making further changes to sections without realizing that the first changes are gone, so the refs are getting messed up too. SlimVirgin(talk) 21:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
As all MadeinFinland seems to be doing is removing ref tags so that the footnotes in the lead become part of the text, I'm going to regard it as vandalism, and I'm going to override the edit conflicts. MF, if you want to make a serious edit, please wait until the copy edit is finished. I'm only going to do a bit more. SlimVirgin(talk) 21:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
inuse tag
For those who are not aware, the inuse tag means an editor is currently involved in overhauling the article. As a courtesy to the editor cleaning up this poorly structured and poorly written article, please allow the edits to be completed so you can see the final product. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Done for now
I've added some material from User:Adam Carr, a historian who has written a draft of this article; references need to be added, because Adam listed his sources at the end of his draft rather than inline. It's a big job so patience would be appreciated. I've also started restructuring it; nowhere near finished yet, but I've made a start.
I'd appreciate if people wouldn't start reverting just because something isn't perfect yet. The changes have just started, so there may be unsatisfactory bits, repetition, bits moved and not yet returned, and so on. Please bear with me. SlimVirgin(talk) 23:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
As this page was very long, I moved the aftermath section to a new article at After the Holocaust. That brings this article down from 146 to a more manageable 101 kilobytes. If anyone disagrees, feel free to re-add it here, or rename the other one, or whatever. SlimVirgin(talk) 04:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Article flows much better now, and more properly acknowedges that many have a widely different use of the word 'The Holocaust'.
I'll throw this one out there; perhaps the details from Involvement of other countries and nationals down could be put on a separate page, and scaled down on this one. Alexsanderson83 06:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
There's a formatting problem after section 4, so that 4.1 etc aren't indented in the toc. I moved a section that was indented properly to that same place in the article, and the indenting broke, as those it's location-dependent, which is weird. Can anyone see how to fix it? SlimVirgin(talk) 00:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
While reading on a related subject - hard to see where it would exactly fit in - I read about Ditlieb Felderer. While working for AWAKE ( Jehovah Witness publication he researched the holocaust ( either out of curiousity or a job assignment )he discovered that the published account of 60,000 JW victims was slightly off. Using JW records he found out that there were only 10,000 JWs in Europe and 203 had been "murdered" with 600+- also dying from disease etc. The AWAKE and JWs in general were very mad - I don't think they ever got over it, but in 1974 the AWAKE magazine did admit that 203 was the correct number. A gruesome part of the Felderer research - strange to never have heard of it before - was that most of the 203 were beheaded - Germany's official execution method ( guillotine ). Most, if not all, of the complaints against the JWs were totally groundless ( but of course they wouldn't fight in the army, etc - of course in the US mobs attacked them ). The death counts for JWs should max out at less than 1000 total if you intend to ever list them. Felderer should also probably be listed in the denial article - he did alot of good research - trivia (he threw his shoes into the pile of shoes at Auschwitz?? ). 159.105.80.141 18:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
12 Million died in the HOLOCAUST
This article used to be so well written. Now someone try to downplay what happened to Romani people as well as other races during WW2. More Romani were exterminated in % than Jews just so you know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 20:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC).
MF, there is now a new separate section on the Roma, and another new section on the definition issue. SlimVirgin(talk) 21:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Missing section and perspective
I think we are missing a section that describes the background to the Holocaust and puts it into perspective. As it is, we get right into the who, when, how, and what, but we are very short on the why.
After all, the Holocaust was a culmination of centuries of antisemitism and pogroms. And the antisemitism was not limited to Europe. As background, in the US in 1939, a Roper poll found that only 39% of Americans felt that Jews should be treated like other people, 53% percent believed that "Jews are different and should be restricted" and 10% believed that Jews should be deported.[3]
The Évian Conference in 1938, "failed to pass even a resolution condemning German treatment of the Jews, a fact that was widely used in Nazi propaganda. The lack of action further emboldened Hitler, proving to him that no country had the moral fortitude to oppose Nazism's assault on European Jewry." (quoting WP)
As another example, the saga of the Voyage of the Damned further proved to Hitler that the West or the Allies would do little to oppose him on the "Jewish Question".
So clearly there was background, building up over the centuries, and the humiliation Germany suffered after WWI, coupled with the economic and social distress that followed, were more ingredients that led to the 'why'.
As of now, I cannot find any of this here, although I am sure it is strewn in bits and pieces over many entries. I think this is really needed to paint a more complete picture. I am sure there is no shortage of sources, and much of the material is already in other entries. Comments? Crum375 01:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The new version is a vast improvement. It is easier to read, better organized, and without being able to point to anything in particular, feels more 'authoritative' or 'encyclopedic.'
That being said, a few questions (perhaps these existed before the rewrite).
Some section leads use euphemisms, ex "Climax" and "Other measures." Would there be objection to using more precise language?
The headers are really just place holders until a better structure starts to suggest itself. SlimVirgin(talk) 02:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Berenbaum is a RS, but in some cases seems subtly POV. I will read back through for more, but certainly in his judenrat discussion he goes to such pains to mention different forms of resistance that he makes it seem as if no judenrat collaborated. We may have quoted too much from a single source.
Agreed. I was intending to make clear that most councils did cooperate. SlimVirgin(talk) 02:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Does Babi Yar need the level of detail it gets here (single, albeit huge and monstrous, event)? Some of this content likely needs to be added to the Babi Yar article (which I haven't looked at in months). Berenbaum cites the leaflet in full, with what I would argue is an inaccurate translation. Since we have the image: babijar14.jpg, we can compare.
Thanks, I'll take a look shortly. SlimVirgin(talk) 02:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, these comments/questions should be taken in context: they are relatively minor compared to the improvements made over the last several days. Jd2718 12:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Article is much better following all the work put in. I would also venture to say it is less offensive to the minority groups who were also part of the Holocaust. 86.149.209.189 16:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Warsaw
Jd, why are you removing Warsaw? SlimVirgin(talk) 02:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I am removing it from a list of extermination camps. Just now I looked at the extermination camp template, and I am still shaking my head. Where do I go to challenge the contents of a template? It is painful to need to ask for precision when discussing the Holocaust, but for history, for the victims and for the future, being correct in the details is important. The single purpose death camp, no, Vernichtungslager, is something so monstrous that the list must not be expanded to include other bad places. Warsaw has no business being on a list of extermination camps. Maly Trostenets probably does not belong. This is painful, and I do not mean to diminish the crimes or the suffering at any of these places, but isn't this a mass execution site (similar to Babi Yar)? And finally Jasenovac was a concentration camp. Tens of thousands were killed there, but the machinery of death? the sole purpose? Jd2718 06:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, those are painful subjects, but the trick is to stick to our attributable sources. If we accept the Yad Vashem data, then for example Jasenovac was also an extermination camp. I suspect that some of these may have had the camp outside of town, but the town's name stuck. I think that you are probably right in the case of Warsaw, though. There was mass killing, but there was no specific construction and design for extermination like the custom-built camps. I am no expert however, and even if I were it would be OR, so we need to find the right sources for this and stick to them. Please review the Yad Vashem references and see what you think. Crum375 07:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me address Maly Trostenets. From what I understand, the original death toll estimates there were much higher (up to .5M) but are now about 65,000. If you check the Yad Vashem document, it sure paints a bleak picture:
Village in Eastern Bellrussia located 7.5 miles east of Minsk; camp and site of mass murder of Jews. About 200,000 people were murdered in the Trostinets area. About 65,000 were killed in Maly Trostinets, including over 30,000 from the last major aktion in Minsk. Between July 28--31, 1942 and on October 21, 1943 the last Jews from Minsk were murdered and buried in Maly Trostinets and Bolshoi Trostinets. During 1942, Jews from Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Austria, and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia were brought by train to be killed in Maly Trostinets. Most of the victims were lined up in front of large pits and shot. Tractors then flattened the pits out. The prisoners in the camp were forced to sort through the victims' possessions and maintain the camp. They occasionally underwent selections (see also Selktion). This happened more frequently during 1943.
Do we have any conflicting sources for this? Crum375 07:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
That source (Yad Vashem for Jasenovac and Maly Trostinets) is clear, thank you. I will dig a bit more.
All of the Maly Trostenets references in our article are post 1990 - I suspected self-serving revisionism by the post-Soviet authorities, but this is just a suspicion. I will dig more. I am certainly allowed to disagree with the source, but my personal feelings matter little here: it is a RS, which everyone should recognize (or does recognize).
But I think I have discovered why Warsaw was added to the list (nothing I will share, since I suspect bad faith); it needs to be deleted from the template.
Thank you, btw, for your response. Jd2718 07:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Jd, please don't apologize for requesting precision. It's what's needed. SlimVirgin(talk) 07:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Numbers
I decided to cross check the death toll numbers for the major extermination camps, and used the WP List of Nazi German concentration camps as my reference. I discovered major discrepancies all over - between that list and the numbers in our list here, and in that list I found missing sources, and varying sources. I discovered that the Yadvashem source appears to be the most reliable and consistent compared to the others, so I started using it to update the list article and add the references. Then I updated the Holocaust list numbers also. I invite anyone to please cross-check me or find better i.e. more consistent and/or reliable sources. I do think that procedurally we need to focus on the list article and then copy the numbers here. Thanks, Crum375 03:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The important thing is to find one authoritative source for the numbers and then use only that source, (and note the source in a footnote after the figure) because they use different methodologies, so if we mix and match sources, we'll end up with an original-research mess. Discrepancies can be noted in footnotes. SlimVirgin(talk) 04:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree fully. As of now, the most reliable and consistent source I could find is the Yadvashem source, per above. I have reviewed all the listed camps, and updated their numbers on both the list article and here, per above. I also added a Talk note in the list article. As of now, we have consistency here in two ways: 1. by being consistent with Yadvashem, and 2. by deriving all numbers from the WP list article. There is one caveat - for Auschwitz the Yadvashem document only gives a number for total Jews, not total persons, and that is 1M. The Auschwitz site source in Poland, which is also excellent, gives a range of 1.1M to 1.5M for total persons, which is consistent with the Yadvashem numbers. Since the Holocaust numbers are in 'best estimate' and not in range form, I took an average between the 1.1 and 1.5 to arrive at 1.3M. This is the only number which is not directly from the Yadvashem source. BTW, the Yadvashem gives the Jews killed as approx. 80% of total, so the 1.3M total per 1M Jews is consistent with that also. Any critiques and/or crosschecks are more than welcome. Crum375 04:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I decided to rely less on the WP list article and try to be more self sufficient. Given that these numbers are almost all based on the Yad Vashem source, I added that as source. The remaining issue is the Auschwitz numbers, which I'm working on resolving. Crum375 04:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. Best not to use WP as a source for anything, especially not figures. SlimVirgin(talk) 04:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed - that list page doesn't seem very active. I now resolved the Auschwitz issue, with a new link on the Yad Vashem site and a footnote explanation. Crum375 05:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Here are the specific documents on the Yad Vashem site that I used for the numbers. If we decide to include them, it should be easy to copy them into the article at any time:
I decided to use individual references. It looks a little cluttered aesthetically, so it may require footnotes instead of external links. Crum375 06:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a link to any studies on Janenovac and/or Maly Trostinets? I searched for Janenovac and got only one hit - in a language I can't even guess at. The numbers seem so large - almost total Auscwitz - it seems strange that these should only pop up now. No wiki article ( other than this talk page ). It appears that there was no burning, etc of the bodies - unless the story expands - so this would be a real forensic bonanza.159.105.80.141 11:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, for both Janenovac and Maly Trostinets, as well as all the others in our major extermination camp list, see the above Yad Vashem links that we now also provide in the article. All these documents are in English. Crum375 12:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The numbers for the Jasenovac extermination camp are greatly exaggarated! It was mostly because of the serbian propaghanda machine. All the experts agreee the number of victims in Jasenovac to be around 80.000 ppl (no more than 100.000), with around 12.000 jews murdered and the rest being gipsies, serbs, croats and others...
http://www.jusp-jasenovac.hr/index_en.php
Vanja Goldberger [email protected]
You can ask at the jasenovac monumet and
Formatting
Slash, can you say why you keep changing the formatting of the other links? [4]SlimVirgin(talk) 03:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Political Prisioners: Spanish Republicans
After the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) a great number of Spanish Republicans went to exile in different European countries. Many were politically active ranging from socialists, to communists, to anarchists. After the fall of France, many Spanish Republicans were sent to concentration camps, notably Mauthausen-Gusen (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauthausen-Gusen_concentration_camp). See also the special badge "S" (Republikanische Spanier, Republican Spanish) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camp_badges
The number of Spaniards that died in concentration are of the order of 10,000. So, I'd like to make a mention of this in the "3.2 Non-Jewish victims" section of the main article.
David Wingeate Pike, Emeritus Distinguished Professor of History, The American University of Paris, published
"Spaniards in the Holocaust: Mauthausen, the Horror on the Danube" (ISBN-10: 0415227801) in 2000 analyzing the topic.
Thanks for providing the information and a source. SlimVirgin(talk) 03:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I've added Spanish POWs to the table. SlimVirgin(talk) 06:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Definition
Think this wants altering to give an understanding to why some people say 6 and the other will say 12. It should address this issue rather than when the word was first uttered. 86.149.209.189 16:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
World at War shows that Gypsies were gassed, why do so many want to dismiss the pain of others, suffered often side by side at the hands of the Nazis. 86.149.209.189 23:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
blond hair, blue eyes.
i was wondering, did hitler kill off those who had brown hair and eyes (such as himself)? i was wantin to know if that's true. 168.103.247.124 19:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
No of course not. That was shown as an ideal, yes, but if you look his most loyal followers had brown hair and brown eyes. Blonde hair and blue eyes is just a sign of purity, and an image they could fight for. --Hayden5650 19:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Well it's true that he killed off himself. See Nordic theory for a discussion of relevance of the "blond-blue-eyed" concept. Paul B 14:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Still six million ??
I have always wondered what data the six million figure is based on. Now I just heard that the death toll for Auschwitz has officially been revised down to 1.5 million from 4 million. How does this affect the figure of 6 million total murdered in the Holocaust? Is it now 3.5 million? How is this figure arrived at? Amity150 05:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amity150 (talk • contribs) 05:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC).
You could try reading the article. :-) SlimVirgin(talk) 06:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I did read the article, but it gives me no idea how the figure of six million is arrived at. Could we say how the research arriving at this figure was conducted, what is was based on, etc.? There must have been some research conducted! Or is everyone just ballparking it based on whatever criteria seem appropriate to them? Amity150 13:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a lot of variability, and the exact figures will never be known. But it would help if you could find verifiable sources that could be used in the article. Thanks, Crum375 13:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It would help if verifiable sources could be found, period. Amity150 21:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Is this the bastard child of Holocaust Denial
The two sides of the Holocaust debate are largely focused on the numbers issue; it is six million or is it (up to) twelve. Holocaust Deniers are rightfully seen as abhorrent self-deluding individuals who would do we would do well to shut up. However, would to deny that Gypsies gassed upon arrival, non-Jewish children, women, etc being killed on arrival and that they do not deserve to be included in some peoples definition of the Holocaust, is that not a bastardised form of 'Holocaust Denial' or selective denial. 86.149.209.189 12:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Part of denial is that the holocaust is a myth made out of whole cloth by the Jews. I can see the Jews disgust at other groups trying to glom onto their idea. Forget the gypsies, etc - the Jews know they are full of it - they ( the Jews) have the inside story on this - they know when someone is faking it. The Jehovahs Witnesses tried it up to 1974 ( they are still included by some who don't read much). In 1974 the JWs reduced their body count from 60,000 to 203 ( they got caught in a minor exaggeration). The gypsies et al are as documented in the holocaust as my dog. Keep this a 100% Jewish event - keeps it easier to argue, research, and shortens up the sentences.159.105.80.141 12:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
So everyone killed upon arrival for being old, a communist, etc. sorry but its easier to leave you out. But a guy who was 1/4 Jewish, never been to a Synagogue, he is part of the Holocaust. To me that is selective denial. 86.149.209.189 12:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
To above anon-IPs: Wikipedia is all about WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Your above discussion is engagement in WP:OR, which is not useful. If you have a source saying X, then please provide it, let's decide if it's verifiable and reliable, let's see where it fits in context and in the overall balance, and then we can possibly use it. Thanks, Crum375 12:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
JWs- 1974 AWAKE magazine - research by Ditlieb Felderer. Gypsies - do you have any documentation ( not just gypsies ). Documentation of a positive type seems hard to come by. Circular documentation ( a rumor documenting a rumor ) shouldn't count. Rarely are such well-known events held together only by dint of the hard verbal work of so many adherents. If the JWs had more energy and cash they might have fought on for the 60,000 number but they lacked that ole college spirit ( however, many proholocaust supporters continue to throw them in without their pushing for the favor - glomming without trying ( can't think of the term to use - probably just trying to beef up a story with examples of co-sufferers ( of course 203 isn't 0 so there is some facts behind it). Any numbers for gypsies and/or other none Jewish groups - 203 = JWs, 48 = homosexuals( per wiki )- gypsies = ? ( I doubt many, but they may have more staying power than JWs or homosexuals).159.105.80.141 13:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you really should stick to specific verifiable sources and what they said. Thanks, Crum375 13:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Think you probably wouldn't get arrested in Austria for it. Although (maybe) an original thought, it certainly does make for an interesting look into the eyes of those who wish to keep it a Jewish event, and the diachotomy of bashing those who reject the Holocaust in its entirety. Londo06 15:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Verifiable sources - if the AWAKE magazine isn't a verifiable source on JW then what is? 159.105.80.141 11:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Theresienstadt
The map showing mass deportations of Jews contains a number of errors. The concentration camp in Bohemia called Theresienstadt is labelled Thrasenstate. I don't know who the cartographer is but there are numerous boundary errors too (e.g. Luxemburg is left outside the Reich and the Austrian parts of the Sudetenland have been detatched from Ostmark). (Landau7 17:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC))
Gays
Someone changed gays to homosexuals in the header, saying that gay is offensive as a noun, but I see it as the other way round. Here are some articles by Peter Tatchell, well-known gay rights campaigner in the UK. [5] In them, he uses gay as a noun and adjective, and queer e.g. here. [6] He uses homosexual as an adjective too, though I couldn't find him using it as a noun. SlimVirgin(talk) 17:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Do we have a policy on the use of gay as a noun on wikipedia? Personally I'd regard it as least preferable, with gay people (or some variant with lesbian in) at the top, and homosexual in the middle. Certainly I'd resist using gay as a noun, and it seems that so do many others, e.g. the Guardian: "use as an adjective rather than a noun: a gay man, gay people, gay men and lesbians not "gays and lesbians"" and the BBC: "...gay" should be used only as an adjective. "Gay" as a noun - "gays gathered for a demonstration" - is not acceptable. If you wish to use homosexual, as adjective or noun, do so. It is also useful, as it applies to men and women". And then when we've resolved that we can move on to "the disabled" (cf. here: "disabled people not 'the disabled'"). --Coroebus 17:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there something wrong with the word gay. In the eyes of many it is a sin, but I don't think it is an offensive word. Homosexual is a cover-all word, Gay would seem more appropriate to what a man is, rather than a womans state of mind, lesbian is obvious. 90.197.27.236 17:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no policy. The alleged offense is in the subtle difference between gay and gays. It's been discussed on the gay page before. The problem is that any word can be deemed offensive to some. We should avoid terms like LGBT here though, because this was primarily about homosexual men. Paul B 17:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
How about 'gay men', which is what the relevant section says, and, while we're at it, I would argue for 'disabled people'. --Coroebus 17:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
"Gay men" is fine, because it was gay men only who were persecuted, so far as I know. SlimVirgin(talk) 18:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Cheers. Any views on 'the disabled' vs. 'disabled people'? --Coroebus 18:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I do think that adding "people" after these designations suggests there is something wrong with being X, as in people thinking they need to say "Jewish person" rather than "Jew." We talk about the mentally ill, the disabled, the persecuted, the oppressed, and so on. It's more a question of the writing than anything else, and we really can't be following Guardian style guides on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin(talk) 18:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The reasoning, at least in the case of people with disabilities, is to avoid stereotyping people by their problems, so they are 'people with disabilities', or 'disabled people', rather than 'the disabled' (or 'the mentally ill'). Maybe it is a cultural thing, cos I wouldn't talk about 'Jews' or 'the Jews' either. With regard to style guides, there are often good reasons why they say what they say, as here. --Coroebus 18:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem with that is that the addition of "people" to X actually emphasises the idea that there might be something wrong with being X. There's an organisation called the English Collective of Prostitutes which insists on using the phrase "prostitute women" instead of prostitutes. Try that with nurses (nurse women) or any other profession (lawyer people). The need to add "people" automatically implies that X might not be people. "they killed the disabled" should be no different from, "they killed the lawyers". Can you imagine writing "they killed the lawyer people" or "they killed the people who are lawyers"? Paul B 19:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly right. People who insist on writing "Jewish people" are actually being offensive without realizing it. Coroebus, it's just the addition of one word, so if you feel very strongly about it, I'm not going to oppose you, but I'd rather we just said "the disabled," because it's better writing. SlimVirgin(talk) 19:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)In the case of 'the disabled', I think it is rather implicit in the name that there is 'something wrong'. Many of these sorts of groups choose to assert 'X people' because of the pre-existing negative connotations of X (cf. spastic), while I understand your point most groups have advocated for the 'X people' formulation, which is why style guides adhere to it - and ultimately people tend to choose what the group themselves want to be called. So if you work in my field, you do not go around calling people 'the disabled', or 'schizophrenics', or 'the mentally ill', because they will not be impressed, much as black people don't like being called colored. --Coroebus 19:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
But they do want to be called Blacks, I believe, not "black people." But as I said, I won't oppose so long as it doesn't make the writing look odd. SlimVirgin(talk) 19:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
As I say, I think this is a national thing, 'Black people' would be the preferred form in the UK, with 'Blacks' regarded as a bit funny, with just that wiff of racism. --Coroebus 19:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You changed even though consensus was against you. Paul B 09:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
No, SlimVirgin said she didn't mind, that only leaves you that's commented so I hardly opposed consensus. Both you and SV are arguing based on idiosyncratic normative arguments, I've based my edit on what, in my experience, are the generally preferred terms (by the groups involved, and the media) in accordance with my local customs (i.e. the UK). These may differ from your (US?) customs, but I have not as yet seen evidence for that, and I note that the American Medical Association says: "Avoid labeling (and thus equating) people with their disabilities or diseases (eg, the blind, schizophrenics, epileptics). Intead, put the person first.”1(p268) Intead of referring to diabetics, refer to persons with diabetes; the disabled and persons with disabilities." --Coroebus 10:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Most people disagreed, but could not be bothered arguing about it. I think the AMA position is entirely illogical, but never mind. I am British. Paul B 11:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
What a load of Politically Correct nonsense. Please keep the PC crap out of wikipedia. --Hayden5650 11:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Um, how do you know if they didn't say? If you're British then your usage differs from the Govt, BBC, Guardian/Observer and most disability associations. Like I say, idiosyncratic. We have an article on this (List of disability-related terms with negative connotations,and a guideline on identity: "Almost always use terms as adjectives rather than nouns, thus, black people, not blacks; gay people, not gays, and so on. Note that there may be exceptions to this rule: for example, some prefer the term "transgenders" to the term "transgendered people."") --Coroebus 11:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Obviously I meant most people who commented. Style guides are no guarrantee of logic. Paul B 11:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
But only you, me, and SV commented! You can't have a consensus on 2/3. --Coroebus 11:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Five users have commented in this section. Admittedly one was anmonymous and one is the lovable Hayden. It's is a trivial point, but the fact is that you arethe one insisting contrary to other commentators. Paul B 11:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Well Hayden only commented after your claim I'd violated consensus (i.e. before this argument), and the IP didn't exactly make their view clear, which leaves you, me, and SV. Looks like Hayden has found the relevant guideline! --Coroebus 11:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Well that PC load of bollocks of naming conventions actually clears this up in my favor. It says homosexual is acceptable in historical context which is what this is. --Hayden5650 11:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Negro is commonly used here in New Zealand, and holds no racist meaning. Colored here is Generally used by whites to describe non-whites, and by anyone to describe a halfcast or mixed race person. --Hayden5650 04:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I changed it to "Homosexuals" because based on what I've read it wasn't just gay men who were persecuted during the holocaust. [[7]]Wikidudeman(talk) 08:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I changed it back, before you'd finish posting that comment, actually. While a few lesbians were picked up, there was no organized effort against them, and (in fact) the Nazi-era laws specified gay men and made no reference to women. Some have hypothesized that the Nazis were barely even aware of lesbianism. See [8] --Aquillion 08:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I still think it should be "homosexuals" since there were indeed some persecutions of lesbians. The link you posted is the like I referenced which says that some lesbians were persecuted.Wikidudeman(talk) 08:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Some did die in the Holocaust, yes, but this was almost always because they were a member of some other group that was targeted. They were persecuted in other ways, but there was no specific, organized effort to exterminate them as there was with gay men or the other groups mentioned; lesbianism was, in fact, not criminalized. See also [9] or our own article on Black Triangle. The topic might be worth covering in more detail (I notice even our article on History of homosexual people in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust makes only a passing mention of Lesbians) but it should be made clear that gay men, in particular, were one of the groups targeted for extermination. --Aquillion 09:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
There was no attempt to exteminate gay men either. The claim that "gay men" were "targeted for extemination" is not supported by the evidence. We have to be as precise as possible. Homosexuality was a criminal offence, but homosexuals were not treated as a "race" deserving of elimination, rather they were treated as sexual criminals and were victimised and abused in the camps because of that. Paul B 10:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Images
All of the images are on one side. Some of the images need to be moved to the left side of the article.--Sefringle 06:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The way you're moving things is messing up the formatting, at least with my browser. You've also put one image on the left where the faces are looking out of the text now. Images should face into the text. SlimVirgin(talk) 06:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Though the images are almost all on the right side. Some of them should be on the left as well, and maybe we should delete some of them, as the article has too many images. In some sections it is distracting to the text.--Sefringle 06:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It's more distracting to the text to have the reader's eye jump from left to right and back again. It's particularly distracting to have images that face to the left placed on the left of the article, because then they're looking away from the text, and the reader's eye is drawn that way. SlimVirgin(talk) 06:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
This is especially true in the "Wannsee Conference and the final solution (1942–1945)" section, though I'm not going to edit this section, since the formatting seems kind of complex. I think this article might have a few too many images.--Sefringle 06:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It's in the process of a rewrite, Sefringle, so there's not much point in changing image locations, because it's not finished. There's text to be added still, sections may still be moved, then the whole thing has to be carefully sourced, and the writing tightened. Still quite a lot of work ahead. The Wansee conference images are laid out like that on purpose to show the evolution from the Wannsee Conference room to the corpses. SlimVirgin(talk) 06:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you should add the rewrite template to the top of the page then to clarify to readers who are just comming to this page that the article is in the process of being re-writtten. I came to this article, and was just shocked by the massive amount of images here. The excessive amount of images detracts from the text. These further information boxes are also a little too full. Some of the material should be moved to the "see also" section. It seems like someone put every possible link they could think of related to the holocaust into this article. --Sefringle 06:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
A long list of see-alsos means they won't get looked at. By breaking them up and putting them in sections, they're more more relevant to readers. I don't agree about there being too many images. SlimVirgin(talk) 12:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I printed this out recently to check out the image placement, and I showed the printed version to a professional publisher. It looks good, and the publisher remarked on how well-laid out it looked. Large clumps of text aren't read by people. They need things to break it up: images, large quotes, see-alsos in different colored boxes. That's why I added them. SlimVirgin(talk) 12:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It just seems from my computer like there are just too many images. I have never seen an article on wikipedia laid out like this one.--Sefringle 03:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
"National Socialist" vs Nazi
As most people probably recognize Nazi as the more notable term, we should use Nazi to describe the German regime, rather than National Socialist regime.--Sefringle 06:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
hehehe hello
Load of bollocks. Nazi is not what they referred to themselves as. So unless we start calling blacks colored and negro and jews kikes, why should we treat the National Socialist German Workers' Party any different? Remember, NPOV in wikipedia. --Hayden5650 08:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Consnsus has been to use the word Nazi party. "Nazi" is not in itself comparable to words like "nigger". It is only an insult because of what the Nazis did, nnot because it was coined as such. 09:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
According to the Nazi article it is, in fact, a derogatory way to refer to the National Socialist Party, but I hardly think we need spare their feelings. --Coroebus 10:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Slightly, yes, like many other such shorthand terms, but it is by far the established usage in English. Simon Schama recently cvlaimed that Churchill's pronunciation Naaasi was deliberately derogatory. It's diffucult to really know. Paul B 11:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
NPOV please. The NSDAP never even broke a law. They entered power legally, and their 'victims' had ample oppurtunity to leave.--Hayden5650 10:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
The argument here would be that it is universal usage to refer to the NSDAP as the Nazis now, and that it doesn't convey the same implications in English that it might have in German. --Coroebus 11:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hayden, we agreed on gay men and disabled people as a compromise. It's a small point, so would you mind leaving it for the sake of stability? SlimVirgin(talk) 12:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll leave Nazi, so long as it is not used in a derogatory way, if you leave homosexuals as homosexuals. --Hayden5650 12:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I note that this user has a history of disruptively editing articles to push a negative POV toward gays and lesbians. Just look at his contribs. FCYTravis 21:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Formatting
I tried to improve & simplify it and make it more consistent with other WP articles. I suggest we use wiki rather than html syntax, and reserve {{quotation}} for quotations rather than {{see}}. ←Humus sapiensну? 11:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure yet who did it, but the formatting got all messed up. The images ended up in ugly boxes, after they looked just great. I hope no one makes any formatting related changes without carefully verifying the effects in Preview - the visuals and graphics here are no less important than the text. Thanks, Crum375 13:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for causing trouble. It looked better in my browser/display resolution. ←Humus sapiensну? 23:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Iraq and the Palestinian Arabs
In your list of Axis powers, you forget to mention that Iraq in 1941, after a pro-Nazi coup, joined the Axis, as did the Arab in Palestine, led by the pro-Nazi Mufti--Herut 17:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Haj Amin El Husseini. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Herut (talk --Herut 17:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a generic WWII issue, and should probably be discussed here. Crum375 22:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Translation issue
Berenbaum gives one translation for the Babi Yar notice. The Babi Yar article give another (anonymous) one. Given that Berenbaum is a reliable source, why would we choose the anonymous source over Berenbaum? Jayjg (talk) 01:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Berenbaum may not be as reliable as we may have assumed. Further, he misidentifies the notice: we have the image, in German and Ukrainian. He claims it was in German and Russian. The giveaway is his "Kikes," a slur. No apologies for anyone here, but neither the German nor Ukrainian uses a slur. But leave that aside. If he doesn't even have the language right, how can he be considered reliable for the translation? Jd2718 01:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
No, he says the notices were posted in Russian and Ukrainian; the picture you have is of one of the Ukrainian notices. In Russian the acceptable word for Jew is "Ivrei", whereas the pejorative term (the equivalent of "kike") is "zhid". Jayjg (talk) 02:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the Russian lesson, but we don't know what's written in Russian, do we? Jd2718 10:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC) (and wouldn't Еврей more likely be transliterated Yevrei?) Jd2718
I have reverted the latest translation from deathcamps.org, as I am not sure about the relative merit of that translation vs. the one from Berenbaum we had before. I think we need to sort that out before replacing it. Also, the edit I reverted broke the reference to Berenbaum source lower down - if you make an edit, please make sure you don't cause collateral damage. Thanks, Crum375 00:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Berenbaum is the one we had after. Berenbaum missed the German. Even without deep knowledge of Ukrainian, it is easy to see that he has a "free" not a literal translation. Please restore the image you deleted, and the better translation. Jd2718 00:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
If you must "resolve" differences, then the clearly more RS should stay in the interim. Berenbaum missed the German, invented an exclamation point, and all around seems to have provided a loose translation. Further, his status as a RS should be questioned. Jd2718 00:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I will confess to not speaking Russian or Ukranian, which should make me fairly objective here. I think that the deathcamps translation's reliability is unclear. I prefer to see some acknowledged reliable source backing a specific translation. I would defer from making any changes until we have such a source available which contradicts the Berenbaum translation. Crum375 00:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I only now realized that the German version is included underneath the Ukranian. From what I can tell it is much closer to the deathcamps version than the Berenbaum version, but I would still prefer for wait for a reliable source here, especially since we don't have the Russian version, if there is one. Crum375 01:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I've found the Russian version and I've sent it out to a few native speakers. The translation they give is that a word equivalent to "kike" or "yid" is used (i.e. a slur), but the sentence is in the passive tense, not the active. However, Berenbaum is unquestionably a reliable source, so in a sense we should stick with his translation. I'm minded to e-mail him, because it's possible he was translating from a different poster, or he may not be aware that the translation he published may not be quite correct. SlimVirgin(talk) 03:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
If you've got the Russian, then let's have it. Is there a source? Berenbaum's translation matches neither the Ukrainian nor the German. Jd2718 04:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The link she provided shows both Russian and Ukranian versions of the poster. Jayjg (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I see the Russian, I see no source. Do you? Jd2718 04:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Jd, by all means look for one. If we're going to replace the Berenbaum translation, we should try to find one by another reliable published source. SlimVirgin(talk) 06:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
But I just did, and got quickly reverted, and piled on here. What is your source for the Russian leaflet you just linked to? FLickr dont' count. Jd2718 11:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
You haven't provided a reliable source yet. The source I used for the translation is Berenbaum. If you have a comparable or better source, please say who it is. SlimVirgin(talk) 02:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
In the 2 days since this discussion started deathcamps.com has been blacklisted (for intellectual property issues, not spam), did you know that? eliminating both the image and the translation. I don't know if I will find something else. In the meantime, I've been reviewing what is sourced in this article to Berenbaum. Short on facts, long on sweeping generalizations, weasely stuff, and, in this case, a very loose translation. Even the flickr Russian, if it is real, doesn't match Berebaum. I suggest that bringing him in was the weakest part of the (generally quite valuable) work you did, and the first part you should look at revising. There is time, I haven't picked up the book yet. But odds on he's an essayist, not a RS. Jd2718 02:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
That website wouldn't have counted as a reliable source. There's been some controversy about it using at least one anonymous source, and we don't know what the qualifications are of the people who run it. Berenbaum wrote the USHMM book, was the USHMM project director, and has edited some important scholarly works on the Holocaust.
If you can find an alternative translation from a scholarly source, let us know. What you're calling a free translation may be more accurate than a literal one; it's to make judgments like that that people are paid as professional translators, and that's why translations from Wikipedians aren't allowed to trump them. SlimVirgin(talk) 02:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
And of course I will look. But an aside: At some point, we can see the words in front of us. German, Ukrainian, Russian. We don't have a better source, but each of us knows that Berenbaum is wrong. An editor would be looking for a replacement. An edit warrior would hide behind WP:RS. I assume you are looking. Jd2718 03:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Your insults are not appreciated. You're not a professional translator, obviously, or you'd have understood my point about free translations. The person who did the Berenbaum translation was almost certainly a scholar or a professional translator, and seemed to feel that a free translation more accurately rendered the tone of the poster; it's because professionals are in a position to make these judgments, and we're not, that we stick to reliable sources even when we disagree with them. You've been challenging this translation for days without producing a single alternative translation from a reliable source. Please do so, or drop it. SlimVirgin(talk) 03:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not I find a good translation, it has no bearing on how lousy the Berenbaum version is. You have no idea how good or bad it is, just a defensive tone, from day 1, that has no place here. "Almost certainly" that's a guess, right? "seemed to feel" another guess, right? I have no intention of dropping this. Nor should I. Jd2718 03:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I said please find a reliable source or drop it, and you have no choice but to do one or the other. SlimVirgin(talk) 03:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Pictures
Hi, you know the picture with the corpses and stuff, is that really nessecary? I find it really disturbing and i think a lot of other people probably do as well. maybe do you think we could put a warning or something? thanks. Jimmyswift 03:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Toughen up. No censoring on here mate. It's just a few dead bodies there are much worse things in the world to see than that. --Hayden5650 10:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Jimmy, it's a disturbing topic, and it's important to report it and show it as it occurred. I'm not sure about the issue of a warning at the top of the page. I've not seen it before, but it's worth investigating. SlimVirgin(talk) 22:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not worth investigating. There's supposed to be no censorship on here. If we start this, before you know it articles will be being given R18 classifications and so on. --Hayden5650 22:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Hayden5650, I think if we start adding warning messages we'll go down a very slippery slope. Crum375 01:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Lack of original sources
My articles have often been criticised of not having enough original sources. After reading through this article I have yet to see one piece of evidence that isn't second-hand from a holocaust historian. Where are the original sources? Is there even the name of one witness provided in this article? Saying something is one thing, it actually being correct is another. If a historian is incorrect and then another historian quotes him, this does not make the original claim any more correct! Individual claims need individual references! --Delos 03:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is still a work-in-progress. There are lots of sources available, both online and in print, both secondary and primary. As far as primary sources, beyond the ones we already cite, there are a lot of witness statements are stored on the Yad Vashem sites, but there are also other sites and lots of books that quote witnesses and documents. If I may suggest, if you feel that some primary sources are missing, please help by finding them and adding them in. Thanks, Crum375 00:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of paras in Distinctive features section
I am puzzled that [Jayjg] deleted the paras that I inserted yesterday with the comment: (the article is already quite long; these sections are very short, and all based on one article. They should probably be incorporated in another way). I would agree that the sections are quite short, but I believe informative. Perhaps two of the sections, condemnation by birth and totality could be combined. I realize that the article long which is one of the reasons that I inserted small sections. Clearly the points belong in the Distinctive features section, add important new distinctions. It is not based at all on one article, the reference is to a well-known book which includes many references. I added the speech so that someone who does not have access to the book could read a summary of the points. I do not believe that these are adequate grounds for deleting the paras which were painfully posted using a slow connection as I am in the depths of France at the moment.Joel Mc 07:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting this out.Joel Mc 15:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Who keeps screwing with the photos?
Could people please stop pissing around moving the photos you're really screwing up the article. They all belong on the right hand side. --Hayden5650 10:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted your changes because they are introducing ugly looking boxes around the images. As I noted above, the visual effects and graphics in this article are no less important than the text, and we should make an effort to preserve or improve them. Please use the Preview function to check the effects of your edits before saving. Thanks, Crum375 11:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Photographs don't "all belong on the right hand side". On the contrary, they should be on both sides, and inserted with an eye to visual interest. Jayjg (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was annoyed when i wrote that comment. I realise they should be nicely for aesthetics etc, and already where some on the left hand side. However, someone moved them lastnight, apparently for the sake of moving them and it really screwed with the paragraphs and made huge gaps. --Hayden5650 23:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Every time the images are moved or the formatting changed, the page gets messed up, text ends up on top of images, references get broken, or images are moved away from the text they refer to. As the article is still being written, it would make more sense to wait until a first draft is done, then make suggestions about the formatting on talk if it's not considered good enough. SlimVirgin(talk) 23:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Disruptive editing
Sefringle, what is your problem exactly? You've been told that the article is undergoing a rewrite. This isn't something that can happen overnight. We're adding some text, removing other text, adding images, adding sources. What exactly is the point of adding huge amounts of citation needed tags, and tagging the entire article, even though it already has 127 separate footnotes? You're asking for a source for "In all Nazi camps there were very high death rates as a result of starvation, disease and exhaustion, but only the extermination camps were designed specifically for mass killing," when the entire section on the Wannsee Conference explains that those camps were set up for the purpose of mass murder, and it explains why.
It's not a helpful contribution. SlimVirgin(talk) 06:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, I recently tagged this article in places where sources were missing. Why did you revert it?--Sefringle 06:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
the beginning of the section now reads, in part "During 1942, in addition to Auschwitz, five other camps were designated as extermination camps (Vernichtungslager) for the carrying out of the Reinhard plan." My understanding is that only 4, Auschwitz + the 3 new ones, were Aktion Reinhard camps. Can the "designated as extermination camps" be sourced or, if it cannot be, can it be reworded? Jd2718 12:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems that Chelmno is the only one of the 5 that is not mentioned in the Yad Vashem source as part of the AR camps, so I added the AR source and a footnote for Chelmno. Crum375 02:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Complex things are not simple
The old article was showing quite well where there is controversy on aspects of the Holocaust, heck, it was even showing the mixed views within German officials. The current article is very streamlined - like copied from the pages of a middle school textbook. Simplification is okay for teaching an introductory lesson but a historic record should convey the complexity as it occurred in reality - where there is no single answer on the motivations and where actions had various side effects allowing the horror not to unfold linearly. An encyclopedia is a good point of reference to all those further reading parts - please don't make them just footnotes or even subject to the "search" button. Have a heart and put some complexity back in, thanks, Guidod 22:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
The previous version was a horror story of bad writing, bad sources, and plagiarism. What were the mixed views of German officials that you're referring to? Please provide link to that part of the article. SlimVirgin(talk) 02:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
One-sided article
Not even a word about the Righteous among the nations (the footnote link could not be fair solution for any uninformed reader!). Not even a word about any salvation of any Jewish community. The word "salvation" even doesn't exist in the present article. Speculative information about Bulgarian Jews (in the proper Bulgarian territory there were only 48,000 Jews). The result: one-sided, biased and tendentious article. - Jackanapes 13:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you be a little clearer about what is missing and why this implies bias? Why should the word "salvation", specifically, be in the article? Paul B 13:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Because there were rescued Jewish communities. - Jackanapes 13:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
P. s. And, of course, there were many non-Jewish persons and non-Jewish communities, who struggled against the Holocaust. Some of them - successfully. There is section "Jewish resistance", but where is the section "Non-Jewish resistance"? Isn't this a symptom of one-sidedness? - Jackanapes 13:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Jackanapes, this is a wiki, which means anyone can edit. If you have valid reliable published sources that add relevant information, by all means let us have them here or add them to the article directly - just criticizing vaguely is not helpful. Thanks, Crum375 14:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
This article has been extensively re-written recently. You may find the material you want in a previous version (e.g. here where there are sections on resistance and rescue). --Coroebus 14:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what Jacknapes is referring to exactly but I will tell you one thing: the highest death rates in Europe were in the Bulgarian occupied areas of Yugoslavia and Greece. This version is bad enough with this ommssion, looking at the old version it implies Jews there were arrested by German authorites. That is false. The Bulgarian authorities, backed by Bulgarian army and Bulgarian gendarmes and Bulgarian nationalists, arrested almost every single Jew in those places on Passover of 1943. They were transported by Bulgarian transport from Yugoslavia and Greece, through Bulgaria, and handed off to to German authorites there to be taken to Treblinka. I know as all my grandparents were among those taken by the Bulgarians from their town in Greece.
That tiny handful that escaped did so with the assistance of the Greeks, the Greek resistance and Greek priests-- under penalty of death -- where they went to Palestine, Turkey, or incredibly a place where they had a better chance of survival -- the German occupied zone of Greece!
The general implications of survival rates are a perversion. some of the countries where Jewish death rates are the highest are ALSO the same places where the non Jewish population suffered the highest death rates at the hand of the Axis because of general resistance to occupation as well as resistance to the deportation of their Jewish countrymen. Greece and Yugoslavia are not put inot proper context when balanced against Bulgaria -- which occupied parts of those countries and which as part of ethnic cleansing policy implimented the Holocaust against the Jews in those occupied territories.
As someone whose family was deported by the Bulgarians I would ask why doesn't the Box list in this article which shows "responsible parties" include Bulgaria?IsaacBR 17:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I am prevented from editing this page but whoever wrote: "Bulgaria and Finland introduced no anti-Jewish measures at all, and Hungary did so only after the country was occupied by Germany in 1944." has got to be kidding.IsaacBR 17:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is a fairly detailed article about Bulgaria's Jews from Yad Vashem. Does that fit with your knowledge? And you mention Finland - do you have any information about Finland's collaboration with the Nazis regarding the Jews? Crum375 18:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Yad Vashem's site, section The Righteous Among the Nations, Bulgaria, article about Dimitar Peshev:
Peshev was a prominent politician in Bulgaria of the period before and during World War Two, and in 1936 he served as Minister of Justice. On the international scene, he favored Bulgaria's alliance with Nazi Germany, in the hope that it would help the country recover the territories lost in the Balkan wars of 1912-13. When, in March 1943, he learned that the government intended to hand over to the Germans for deportation some 8,000 Jews from Kustendil, a town on the border of Macedonia, he decided to oppose this vigorously. Rushing into Parliament, he gathered a few members, and burst in the office of Gabrovski, the Bulgarian Minister of Interior, with a demand that the order be rescinded. After a dramatic confrontation, Gabrovski ordered that the deportation be postponed. Peshev personally called the local prefect's office to make sure that the counter-order was being obeyed. Not satisfied with this, Peshev decided to publicly denounce this and further deportations from the podium of the Parliament, where he served as Vice-Chairman. Drafting a letter of protest, he collected the signatures of over 40 members of Parliament, addressed to the government and the king, in which he pleaded not to disgrace the name of Bulgaria by consenting to the deportation of its own citizen-Jews to Nazi concentration camps. The public protest occasioned by Peshev's posture caused the government to back down its plans to deport the country's 50,000 Jews. Peshev, however, was penalized by his dismissal as Vice-Chairman of the parliament. After the communist takeover, at the end of the war, Peshev was placed on trial for his participation in the previous pro-German government. His role in the saving of the country's Jews swayed the court in reducing his sentence, and he was freed after one year's imprisonment. In January 1973, Yad Vashem awarded him the title of "Righteous Among the Nations," for his role in halting the deportation of Bulgaria's Jews, at considerable risk to himself. He died that same year.
Check also Michael Bar-Zohar's book "Beyond Hitler’s grasp: the heroic rescue of Bulgaria’s Jews", Holbrook, Mass., Adams Media, 1998. - Jackanapes 23:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems that there aren't arguments against addition of section about non-Jewish resistance and rescued Jewish communities in Bulgaria and Denmark. I will restore the passage from previous version. - Jackanapes 17:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Holocaust Denial
Could a link be placed somewhere in the article to associate it with Holocaust denial? Discgolfrules 21:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
There already is one, in the box entitled Aftermath and historiography. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I urge editors interested in the Holocaust to take care of the stub Dzyatlava massacre, which is currently linkless. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Not that i agree with this in anyway. In fact i find the arguments absurd, but i think there should be a sub-section on this page about Holocaust denial for the interest of NPOV, and more. Similar things are found on most pages with some controversy. There are many who believe it didn't happen and perpetuate it. To ignore this would be to not only cause problems with NPOV but would also cover the theory i secrecy. The big lie was a large part of the holocaust, making it too horrible to believe. This has still carried on to this day. Projects like http://www.holocaust-history.org/ work to disprove the holocaust deniers, rather than just ignoring them. So i really think it should be more than just a small link. (one i didn't even see when looking for it). So make a brief description of their claims and link to the larger page. and then have a section for documentation of it holocaust and programs and project that have the goal of recording evidence for no one to forget ZyMOS 05:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
There was a section on Holocaust denial before the major rewrite earlier this month. A small subsection on this topic would be appropriate (along with a more prominent link to the main Holocaust denial article) - although it's a fringe view, it is arguably too much of a hot potato to omit mentioning it here at all. 217.155.20.163 18:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Roma subtitled as Gypsies
I had added a subtitle to the Roma section, thus changing the title to "Roma (Gypsies)". North Americans refer to Roma very frequently as Gypsies, and the term is not generally derogatory when used as such. I did kindly notice that an individual who appears to be a British contributor removed the subtitle. I respect his copious, quality edits, but I do kindly ask him and the Wikipedia community to reconsider the subtitle removal; if you say "Roma" to a NoAm (in the sense of referring to this people), he/she likely won't know what you are talking about without further explanation/references. Yet, I realize that Roma is the "educated" term for this people. Further debate and discussion welcomed (I did not revert the aforementioned revert, btw). —Catdude 05:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
In New Zealand, Gypsies are called Gypsies and is not derogatory. Roma is unheard of --Hayden5650 07:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I have lived in both Europe and North America I would agree that the term gypsy is not generally considered derogatory. However, I have often heard Roma feelings that it is. Thus the Wikipedia entry for gypsy states "The term is sometimes considered to be derogatory." If an internal link were made, then it would be clearer. Joel Mc 07:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd say there's a whole issue around the Roma, Gypsy, Traveller conflation (in Ireland and the UK at least), which is one of the reasons why people will avoid the word 'Gypsy'. --Coroebus 10:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
The Romani scholars I've been reading for this article say Gypsy is considered very derogatory, so I removed it, except from the quotes. SlimVirgin(talk) 23:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Not a purple star
Please forgive me for pointing it out, but Jehovah's Witnesses wore a purple triangle in the camps. This can be easily verified.
That was actually just a typing error; thanks for pointing it out. SlimVirgin(talk)
"Intelligentsia"
Neutral reader, skimming the article for the first time in some time. In the following paragraph under "Definition", I am curious/desiring clarification (albeit not necessarily saying the article needs it):
The word "holocaust" is also used in a wider sense to describe other actions of the Nazi regime. These include the killing of around half a million Roma and Sinti, the deaths of several million Soviet prisoners of war, the killing of the intelligentsia, slave laborers, gays, Jehovah's Witnesses, the disabled, and political opponents.
Just wondering who the 'intelligentsia' were in this context and why they were killed. (I do know the definition of the word.) I guess I've never run across this one before, or it's just not clicking with anything I've read previously. Possible overlap with 'political opponents'? Again, just my own curiousity. --Thessaly 02:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The numbers for gays and Jehovahs Witnesses seem to be 48 and 203 deaths - not counting disease ( 600-800 for JWs, ? for gays). These numbers are considerable revisions from original estimates. Has any real research been done on the other groups?159.105.80.141 13:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Too long?
This article is currently 120 kilobytes long, so perhaps it's time to think about trimming or splitting. see:Article length#A rule of thumb I added the {toolong} tag but was reverted without comment. What does everyone think? Cheers —dv82matt 06:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
There's still quite a bit of writing to do on this (since the recent rewrite), and I think we'll lose a fair bit when it's tightened. Bear in mind the subject matter too, which necessitates that it be longer than most. Campaign history of the Roman military is a featured article and is 121 kilobytes.
There's no point in putting a tag on it; the people working on it know how long it is. SlimVirgin(talk) 06:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
You seem to agree that the article is too long at present. If the people working on the article know that it is currently too long, as you suggest they do, then there should be very little opposition to applying an appropriate tag. However, I did err by putting the tag on the article page rather than the talk page, so unless someone objects I'll add the {toolong} tag to the talk page soon. —dv82matt 08:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
And what would you see as the point of the tag? SlimVirgin(talk) 23:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Serbs
The main thing about Croats killing Serbs, it was not even part of Holocaust, but of the then-even-more savage Balkan ethnic conflict. Sure, they killed the Jews too - but so did the German-supported Serbs (in turn, the communists exterminated Axis and former Axis civilians later). Hitler did not want Serbs exterminated, or even just Serbs in Croatia, more then he wanted the French.
This is like if the Polish victims of the Polish-Ukrainian ethnic conflict (some Ukrainian formations were German-supported or even run, including SS) were the victims of Holocaust - no one does this. I believe the Serbs should be excluded, as they were not the victims of the Nazi racial policy. But as for now: Discuss. --HanzoHattori 17:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Rescuers
Jackanapes, your new section mixes up rescuers with resistance, going back and forth without a connecting narrative, and repeating material that's in other sections. The article is too long to get into rescuers and collaborators, which is why both were moved to other pages. It's best to leave this page for the core Holocaust issues. The longest FA is 121 kilobytes, and we're already at 120 (not that I'm saying this is ready for FA status, and I'll be surprised if it ever gets there, but it's good to use those standards as a guide). SlimVirgin(talk) 23:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Then shorten some other sections and develope that section in a better way! - Jackanapes 13:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
P. s. By the way, there are several section, which repeat several main articles:
Etymology and use of the term
Main article: Names of the Holocaust
Roma
Main article: Porajmos
Death squads (1941–1943)
Main article: Einsatzgruppen
Death marches (1944–1945)
Main article: Death marches (Holocaust)
Why don't you erase them as well with purpose to shorten the article if its length is so worring? - Jackanapes 13:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Jackanapes, please concentrate issues related to this article on this Talk page, since spreading it to individual editors' Talk pages will make it difficult for others to follow the discussion. Specifically here, this article is already very long. Its central topic is the core of the Holocaust, which is the systematic annihilation of 6 million Jews, most of Europe's Jewry, as well as some other groups, like the Roma. There are many secondary topics, like the ongoing world war, the occupation of many European countries, the post Holocaust analysis and denial, the way various nations acted in relation to the Holocaust, the historical background, and so on. These are very extensive topics and deserve a complete treatment. There is no way we can cram them all into the main article within a FA-like size constraint, while doing a fair presentation of the issues and facts. If you have facts that you think are pertinent and well sourced about the related topics, please update their sub-pages first, where there is much less space constraint. When all the sub-pages are optimized, we can always decide to add summaries from their leads here if needed. That there are sub-articles for existing sections doesn't mean those are optimized - the article is already too long, needs to be reduced, and there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. I hope this makes it clearer. Thanks, Crum375 14:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Jackanapes, I don't understand your claim that having no section on rescuers somehow makes this article "biassed". I can't see that such a section is necessary. As for your other point, yes, there are sections here that are expanded elsewhere. That's how these articles work. Subjects that require both inclusion and a more detailed have longer separate articles. Paul B 15:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
MEDICAL EXPERIMENT
I submitted a post earlier this evening correcting the story of the medical experiment performed on the twins sewn back-to-back. The ending of the account in the article is incorrect. Eyewitness testimony from the War Crimes Trials indicates that the twins died of gargarene and were not euthanized with morphine. Someone deleted my scholarly post, calling it "vandalism" simply because I did not create an account. I posted my email address in the event the article is updated so I can provide a bibilographical reference for my source materials. However, instead of actually READING my post, this other user simply deleted it because I prefer to have the system automatically submit my IP address instead of using my account name. This is my right and I find this other person's actions both inappropriate and a deliberate hindrance to correcting serious errors in the article. Email: [email protected] DO NOT DELETE THIS POST. The article as stated is incorrect. If you're the author, then grow up and admit you made a mistake instead of trying to delete submissions requesting correction. The Holocaust is too important a topic to have historical errors propagated on a popular site like Wikipedia.
We have a source for the material. If you have a better one, by all means give a reference here and we can look at it. SlimVirgin(talk) 00:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The post was deleted automatically because a pop-up signalled it as vandalism (due to the redirect sign at the top). It had nothing to do with an attempt to censor you. I'm sure no-one intends to downplay the criminality of the event. It would be best if you posted the relevant passage and page references to your source here, rather than email them to individual editors. The information regarding the morphine comes from the testimony of Vera Alexander, reported in Gutman, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, 1994, p.324. "The wounds were filthy and they festered. There was a powerful stench of gangrene. The children screamed all night long. Somehow their mother managed to get hold of morphine and put an end to their suffering". Paul B 05:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Catholics??
Er... I don't want to accuse anyone of Holocaust denial here, but 3 million Catholics died in the Holocaust, last I checked. I don't see any mention of this at all on this page, though I could swear it was here six months ago. -- Kendrick7talk 04:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I've never even heard of that before, (I'm not denying it). But I think the term Holocaust really applies to the euthanasia of Jews. Something like 50,000,000 people died in WW2, from many groups, so they can't all be lumped under the term 'Holocaust', doing so would make Holocaust too vague a term as a result. --Hayden5650 05:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I've always understood the term Holocaust to mean people systematically killed by the Nazis, though a term like Shoah I might interpret as Jew-specific since it's a Jewish/Yiddish word (Er... I think, I mean it redirects here.) Sure, lots of people died, how shall I say, extemporaneously on account of WWII (my grandfather was in the Pacific theater and proud of every one, God rest his soul). But I get the feeling some neo-Nazis pulled a fast one on this article; I'll have to dig through the muck and try to restore this. I'd be happy with just a passing mention even though it's only one third. -- Kendrick7talk 06:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Catholics were not systematically killed by the Nazis because they were Catholic. Paul B 09:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
No, not really. That's about how the holocaust came about. The point is that the term Holocaust is invariably used to refer to the killing of Jews, and very commonly used to refer to the killing of gypsies, since both groups were eliminated simply for being who they were, though the killings of gypsies were far less systematic than the killings of Jews. No one was eliminated simply for being a Catholic. Indeed many members of the Nazi state were Catholics, including a bloke called Hitler. Of course his Catholicism was purely nominal, but he was nonetheless a member of the church, as were a many millions of people in the population of the Third Reich. Paul B 09:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Half of the people killed in The Holocause were Jews. Of course, there is a significant population of the other half (including Catholics), but "The Holocaust" is not synonymous with anyone killed during WWII. Is anyone even reading this article?
I've gone back and looked through the article history. The mention seems to have gone from 3,000,000 Catholics, to 3m Polish Catholics, to 3 million Polish Christian/Catholics, to Christian Poles, to non-Jewish Poles (without a number, but, hey, at least two). But, there were never good inline citations for any of this going back. Presumably, the fact is somewhere in one of the Holocaust (resources). -- Kendrick7talk 03:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Was Herr. Adolf Hitler, Führer des Große Deutsches Reich, really a Catholic? really? Where's the proof? I always assumed him to be protestant. --Hayden5650 10:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Hitler was born in a Catholic area of southern Germany. His parents were Catholic. He was a member of the Church, but only nominally. However he stated "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." (John Toland, Adolf Hitler, New York: Anchor Publishing, 1992, p. 507). Paul B 10:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I am Protestant by the way --Hayden5650 10:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I was under the impression Hitler was never confirmed, so he wasn't a full member of the Church as an adult (i.e. he would never had taken communion either). His biological father was Catholic, as was his mother, but no one is "born" Catholic; it's not clear (from what's on wikipedia) what religion his step-father was. Not that it's that important; Stalin, by comparison, almost became a priest. -- Kendrick7talk 18:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I said he was born in Catholic area, not that he was "born" as a Catholic. But that's irrelevant pedantry. Yes he was bapitsed and, I think, confirmed. I'm not sure what step-father you are referring to. Paul B 18:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Oops, yes I misread you, and yes Hitler was confirmed. This is why I never edit articles related to Catholicism -- there are all these things I think I know, but when I check an RS I'm proven dumb. -- Kendrick7talk 19:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
"Concentration Camps" link
Shouldn't it point directly to Nazi concentration camps rather than the generic concentration camp article?
Please sign your message with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. And yes, I agree and made the changes. Crum375 13:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
