This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
"The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt") also known as Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "the catastrophe"; Yiddish: חורבן, Churben or Hurban, from the Hebrew for "destruction"), was a genocide in which approximately six million Jews were killed by the Nazi regime, under the command of Adolf Hitler, and its collaborators. Killings took place throughout Nazi Germany and German-occupied territories."
It implies that the holocaust was just a Jewish tragedy. They were obviously the biggest affected group, but 5 million Christians also died in it. It's not acceptable to imply it was solely a Jewish tragedy in the lead line, then only explain later that millions of others also died in it.
The intro is fine, if it's an article about the Jewish holocaust. But this seems to be about the holocaust as a whole. You only quote half the number of people who actually died in it, in the intro. It's 11 million total.
I think making the Jewish group stand out more does make sense, given that they are by far the largest ethnic group to be targeted, though perhaps the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of the lede could be simply combined into 1 paragraph. This would mention the other 5 million in the same leading paragraph while still focusing more on the Jews. Thoughts? Cannolis (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree because the Holocaust is universally recognized as a Jewish event. The Nazis obviously killed millions and when you include the many millions more killed by the communists and others during WWII the total is something in excess of 60 million total casualties. The Nazis, however, specifically targeted Jews for extermination just because they were Jews. Over six million total Jewish people were killed and many if not most were not exterminated in gas chambers of death camps but killed by other means. If we include the others killed by other means the Holocaust loses its unique and important aspect in that the Jewish people were targeted as a group for systematic extermination. Many Roma died in those camps as well (mostly due to horrific conditions and now due to extermination via gas like Zyklon-B) but they recognize their own suffering as the Porjamas. Should we include the millions of ethnic Poles in the Holocaust as well? Of course not. I believe it is insulting to the Jewish people to include other groups deaths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
The intro is misleading. Is not recognized as purely Jewish event. But apparently there is an attempt to have it recognized as a Jewish event. Some think the plight of "other people" is inferior and not worthy of being mentioned here, probably should be deported to other articles. Oxford (the Holocaust) The mass murder of Jews under the German Nazi regime during the period 1941-5. Mirriam Webster: the Holocaust the killing of millions of Jews and other people by the Nazis during World War II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
"the Holocaust is universally recognized as a Jewish event…" No, it isn't. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
This article is disgusting, it is inaccurate and should be changed. They are directly pushing out false information and not representing the full extent of the event. How dare they say recognising other peoples death in the Holocaust is an 'insult' . This is why no one can rely on Wikipedia for anything, because you have people like that who are more concerned with upholding an agenda rather than facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I was just about to make the same comments as the OP. The Holocaust was not just the attempted extermination of the Jews, it was an attempted extermination of all people classified as 'undesirables' by the Nazis. It is only considered a 'Jewish event' (that in itself is horrifying as 'events' are usually joyful occasions) because when it was first discovered the western world didn't care about the killing of disabled people (seen as worthless degenerates up until very recently) or homosexuals (illegal until recently and still illegal in many places) or Slavs/Poles (they were part of the eastern block after the war so the West didn't care) etc. I am changing the intro to reflect the reality: that the Holocaust was the extermination of 'undesirables'. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 15:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Revert of figure of 11 Million: diff This is relevant to the above section on changing the intro. This issue has been discussed many times on this page. The introduction makes it clear that the Holocaust is about the genocide or mass murder of European Jews. This is the definition used by major historians who are experts on the period which is made clear in footnote 3. Up until now there has not been a consensus to change this. That the Nazis carried out other genocides and massacres, some of which have their own WP articles, is clear.--Joel Mc (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I should add that what is confusing about the article is not the introduction but all the stuff that has been tacked on which while important, does not pertain to the mass murder of the Jews.--Joel Mc (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
This discussion clearly shows that there is no consensus for your revert whatsoever. This thread clearly comes to the conclusion that Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk·contribs)'s change is the one that matches consensus, so your edit should be reverted. I agree with Gaia's version as well. The full eleven million should be included in the first sentence.--MelodyLavender 11:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your support @Melody Lavender:. I agree that the consensus of the discussion above supported my edit. I also made sure to stress targeting of the Jews in the opening sentence. Here's what I put, I think it is a good compromise Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 16:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
The Holocaust ... was a genocide in which approximately 11 million people, including six million Jews, were killed by the Nazi regime and its collaborators
A reply to Melody above: a consensus was required to insert the 11 million not for my revert, the few recent comments completely ignore a long lasting discussion and certainly do not represent a consensus for changing the figure. I among many would not go along with the change. I have explained this position already here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Holocaust&oldid=625056062#6_million_or_11_million.3F more down below.( BTW I had placed my explanation in a new section at the end of the talk page which you changed. A chronological order of the sections faciliates an ongoing discussion, a normal practice I believe) Joel Mc (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for providing the working link. The replacement has made on the page.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Replace Poles with Slavs - its more accurate.
More than just non-Jewish ethnic Poles were also killed during the war, this includes Ukrainians, Belarusians, Russians and other Slavs.
"Non-Jewish victims of broader Nazi crimes include Gypsies, Poles, communists, homosexuals, Soviet POWs, and the mentally and physically disabled. In total, approximately 11 million people were killed, including one million Jewish children alone."
"Non-Jewish victims of broader Nazi crimes include Gypsies, Slavs, communists, homosexuals, Soviet POWs, and the mentally and physically disabled. In total, approximately 11 million people were killed, including one million Jewish children alone."--18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it's less accurate, considering Poles are also Slavs and so are Soviet POWs.... but I digress.
Though I try to maintain an encyclopedic tone, it pisses me off when Russians try to co-opt the Holocaust for propaganda, just as Stalin did——especially since the majority of Neo-Nazis in the world are Russian. We get it, you did most of the fighting with Hitler, and we should acknowledge that more. Lots of Soviets died on the Eastern Front and they saved our asses on many occasions. And yes, Nazis did have a racist hatred of Slavs which reflects the high death rate of Soviet POWS. If it were expedient for Hitler to kill a whole bunch of Slavs, would he? Perhaps. Lots of Germans recommended the genocide of Jews in theory, but only Hitler carried it out. But even though the USSR *was in a brutal war with Germany* (that part is important), they didn't hate Slavs, even combatants—enough to consciously seek them out, ghettoize them, and exterminate them at the expense of the German State. If they captured Slavic POWs in battle, sure they'd kill some of them... but Jews (and Roma) were killed DESPITE the war, not BECAUSE of it. The Siege of Leningrad was a military operation—a barbaric one which killed mostly civilians, but hey, you can say the same about the Bombing of Tokyo. The siege of Leningrad ended when Hitler realized it was futile. The Kraków Ghetto was liquidated only when enough Jews would be killed. Hence, the Siege of Leningrad was a "war crime", not a genocide. Slavs were not persecuted to nearly the extent Poles were under German occupation, not to mention Jews (for which a comparison is laughable trivialization). This equivocating needs to end. It's great that wikipedia is recognizing Nazi crimes against various groups instead of lumping all the victims into "Jews" simply because the vast majority of civilian deaths were Jewish, but there's something wrong when a genocide defined as "the death of 6 million Jews" has an asterisk next to it. In fact, I've seen racists on forums say that "Jews exaggerate the Holocaust" because "More Russians died than Jews" (you mean more Russian soldiers???)... I wonder where they got that idea. Anyway, emotion aside... just no. Wikipedia should not be a platform for revisionism. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
This is not a forum, and your ill-informed commentary is of no relevance whatsoever to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
subtle difference between "dying" and "lying"
dear all, I do like the way this page is totally clear from propaganda. unfortunately it came to my attention that the image of a child have an incorrect description. from the file info you can see and read that the image is decribed as "child lying on the streets", instead in our glorious propaganda free entry it states "child dying". Please dear admins who protected the page provide correcting the mispelling in our page. thank you and keep up the good work keeping wikipedia free of npov and unsourced material. cheers!--Lorenaalsalzia (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the 09:20, 27 November 2014 edit by Giraffedata that the quote is excessive, but Mommsen is an important expert and his three forms are generally used by other historians, perhaps under different names, i.e. Friedlander uses the term redemptive antisemitism for the violent racist form. I have paraphrased Mommsen's forms and re-inserted the reference.Joel Mc (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
The reference for this quote is to a primary source (Mommsen himself is interviewed). Our manual of style asks for secondary sources, so you would have to find books or journal articles by other authors that quotes Mommsen's theory.--MelodyLavender 11:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
This reference is not what is usually meant by primary source. Mommsen is interviewed by a Yad Vashem team which quoted him in their published interview. He has written the same thing in one of his books, but it is in German.--Joel Mc (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
It is not a "primary source" at all (not that there's any rule against using primary sources). The real issue is whether it is sufficiently noteworthy to be given such prominence. Paul B (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Joel Mc An interview in that form (with direct quotations, word by word) is a classic example of a primary source by any academic standard. And yes, there are rules against using primary sources, Paul Barlow, see WP:RS.--MelodyLavender 20:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
It is not by any stretch a "classic example of a primary source". This is a scholar summarising his research. The fact that it is spoken rather than written is irrelevant. A lecture by a scholar is also not a primary source. You seem to have next to no idea what a primary source is. Regarding "rules against using primary sources". Why don't you read WP:RS. You will find there is no ban on primary sources as you initially claimed. So you are wrong on both counts. If you want to debate the issue go to WP:RSN. Paul B (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The link you're posting goes to a noticeboard, Paul. Mommsen is the original source for his theory. A lecture by a scholar about his own theory is a primary source. While primary sources may be allowed under some circumstances, an important high profile article with lots of traffic that seems to be locked down all the time for edit wars (seriously?) is certainly no place for any leniency on sources. You'd have deniers roaming the place in no time. If you couldn't find the place on the page I linked which according to you I didn't read, here is the link to the section: WP:WPNOTRS. --MelodyLavender 06:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Here is another link that also directly explains primary, secondary, tertiary sources: WP:WPNOTRS. It also specifically mentions that you should, like I said, use common sense on when to allow primary sources. Again, a difficult topic like this one is obviously not the place, imho.--MelodyLavender 07:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
There has been an effort to remove any reference to the five million non-Jews from the lead section apparently invoking the "uniqueness" argument discussed further down in the article. This has gone so far as to suggest that contrary opinions are "Fringe." While I absolutely agree that we can't just say that the total number is eleven million, we can't ignore the very significant debate on this subject which definitely exists within mainstream academic circles. I adjusted the text to reflect the controversy while giving weight to the six million. This seems to be a reasonable compromise. I would like some consensus however in the event that there is disagreement and a desire to adopt the "uniqueness" argument as the official position of Wikipedia based on reliable source coverage. If the more expansive view is indeed Fringe then we would also need to heavily edit that section to reflect this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. It is demonstrably false to assert that suggestions by credible historians that non-Jewish victims should be counted amongst those included in the Holocaust are 'fringe'. Our article cites multiple sources which argue the contrary. This is a controversial argument, but that is no reason to exclude it from the article - and if it is in the article, it should also be noted in the lede. AndyTheGrump (talk)
I agree that we need to reach some consensus. I've asked for the page to have temporary full protection to stop edit wars etc until an consensus can be reached. The question is: should we include the deaths of non-Jews in the first sentence of the introduction? Unless someone has a better question? Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 02:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
It's not in the first sentence. It's in the second. The first references only the six million. However, the real question is can we exclude any mention of the controversy from the opening paragraph of the article where the very term is being defined? I think not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
First of all, the issue here is about a definition, not about the "uniqueness" argument which is something quite different and a bit of a red herring in this discussion. The major historians of this period writing in English use the definition of the Holocaust as the mass murder of the Jews. (The French do not have this problem as the term "Shoah" does not include the 5 million non-jews) I still have yet to see a reference to a major historian which includes in the definition the mass murder of 5 million non-Jews. Secondly, I have no problem in mentioning the 5 million, it just that they aren't usually part of the definition. Thirdly, I have no problem putting in that there is controversy about the definition--I would like to see the multiple sources that would include the 5 million--Niewyk et al list 4 possible definitions, but in the end do not opt for including all of the 5 million non-jews. The references they examine are not using the term as a proper noun, i.e. The Holocaust, but in a more generic sense, i.e. the other holocaust, the Polish holocaust etc, thus interchangeable with the word genocide. Finally, I reverted Gaia's insertion of 11 million because it did not represent a consensus. I am not interested in an edit war, but would appreciate if the the 6 million figure remains until a consensus for change is found. I would not agree to adding the 5 million figure to the definition of the Holocaust Joel Mc (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Shoah is clearly defined, Holocaust is not. Niewyk (p. 51-52) states that there is a trend back towards usage of a very broad definition, including all Nazi victims. He says it's mostly too complicated to analyze this, and says scholars make it easier for themselves by narrowing the definition and then proceeds to use a narrow definition for his own work. Also, according to this author (p.45), the term was used during the time of WW II to describe the entirety of the massacres. Another thing to consider is WP:COMMONNAME. The common name for the Nazi mass murders is Holocaust. The original intention behind the ideology of the Nazis was based on Eugenics - first and foremost, according to this ideology, they wanted to murder everyone who didn't belong to their vision of a so called master race. The real execution of this plan did turn out to be first and foremost an incomporable genocide of Jews. I think the current version of the lead is a good solution. And I'm not sure that the issue of uniqueness is unrelated. In any case the uniqueness aspect is not adequately covered in the article. There's a tiny section at the bottom that has only primary refs. --MelodyLavender 21:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This is the link to the ref that was mentioned by me and Joel Mc above:
Thanks for the link. I shall give it a proper read through tomorrow. Interesting that he highlights the controversy around the definition of The Holocaust and the fixed definition of Sho'ah: perhaps we could keep the article, The Holocaust', as an overarching summary of the wider definition (Jews and non-Jews) with a re-direct to Sho'ah for the Jew-centric/narrow definition (that sounds terrible and I apologise, I'm just not sure what else to call it) holocaust? One quick point of interest: p. 46 says 'roughly half of the 11,000,000 European Jews' were murdered this contrasts with the 2/3 of 9 million European Jews in the article. I also wonder of there is a difference in European vs American definitions (I'm British).Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 00:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Didn't Wiesenthal pull that number out of a hat? What research corroborates his claim? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Yours: "If you continue to play this game on deliberately excluding prolific scholars to maintain your perverse, POV Zionist narrative in a section ["Uniqueness"] which shouldn't even exist, I will RfC."
it is amazing that you try to frighten us by calling an RFC. On the contrary, we would like to have an RFC. I can't believe that too many people here believe in Finkelstein lies.
"The Zionist narrative"? You have to study the Holocaust. A lot of the murdered Jews were not Zionist at all, probably most of them. They were killed because they were Jews. The Nazis did not care whether the victims opposed or believed in Zionism. It suggested that you read N.Y. times review of Finkelstein's book, with its internal contradictions and vague writing. e.g. In order "to truly learn from the Nazi holocaust," he asserts, "its physical dimension must be reduced and its moral dimension expanded." Do you understand this sentence? do we have to hide Auschwitz? Ykantor (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
@Ykantor: That's irrelevant. Being negatively reviewed [that was a horrible review by the way, hardly addressed anything substantive; just plays that "elders of zion" card and often attacks him directly] isn't sufficient to warrant exclusion. Let me repeat: the source is notable, secondary, due and published and, moreover, the claims its makes are attributed [ie. Finkelstein claims...] to it. It is a biased source, and not representative of the mainstream opinion, but those two issues are also not sufficient to warrant exclusion. As noted, lead Holocaust historian, Raul Hilberg, agreed with the book's thesis. Its reception was mixed. Again, there is absolutely nothing, per Wikipedia policy, which would suggest it should be removed.
Now, I will explain the "Zionist narrative" issue. I struck it down, but it was clearly interpreted the wrong way, as I have been threatened with A-I sanctions. I would like to make absolutely clear that I am not denying the Holocaust. The reason I brought up the Zionist narrative is because, at least in my view and that of some scholars in the field, that people like you go to great lengths—absurdly great lengths, as you and Monochrome have shown—to maintain the Holocaust as a both unique and Jewish event, and deliberately exclude dissenting views. This is the more extreme view regarding the Holocaust; that the Holocaust marked the climax of a fanatical, eternal Gentile hatred of Jews. This is, of course, quite interconnected with the view that a Jewish state is necessary, or Zionism. If the Holocaust was simply another genocide, and the Jews were just another victim of the many demographic groups the Nazis slaughtered, then the travail of European Jewry during that period fails to take on any unique significance, and thus the extreme thesis of an 'eternal', 'irrational' hatred becomes more flimsy. All of the sources in the "uniqueness" section support this "uniqueness" theory. Per WP:NPOV, it is necessary to provide criticism, and Finkelstein's work is excellent for that. JDiala (talk) 06:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
All right, please lets try to be WP:civil. I presume JDiala's reference to Zionism was about current/contemporary/modern bias, am I right @JDiala:? I agree that Finkelstein's book is notable and his view point is hardly so far out of the game park that shouldn't be included. At most it falls under Wikipedia:Fringe theories, which warrants an inclusion stating that it is a controversial or minority viewpoint.
@Gaia Octavia Agrippa:Yes, I apparently did not make myself clear enough, and I apologize for that. I did not deny the Holocaust. By "prolific scholars" I did not mean deniers, I meant Finkelstein; and by "Zionist narrative" I did not mean the occurrence of the event itself, but the "uniqueness" theory. JDiala (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree with user:JDiala, Finkelstein is a reliable source and both points of view should be represented, as per WP:NPOVBlaue Max (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Gaia Octavia Agrippa: I watched your contributions and it seems that you are very valuable editor. Hence your words concerning Zionism are are especially hurting. What is the connection between Zionism / Israel and the Holocaust? What Israeli interest is supposedly connected to the Holocaust? During Israel first years, Israel was weak and the powers refused to sell her defensive weapons, although the Holocaust just happened. Only when they considered Israel as a strong nation (after the Israeli victory of 1967 war), the American started to support Israel ( while the USSR and France joined the enemy side). Israel survival has nearly nothing to do with the Holocaust. However, a lot of people are against Israel, because of reasons which has nothing to do with Israel deeds. Those people like those conspiracy theories (e.g. Finkelstein) and happy to quote his writing instead of checking it themselves. e.g. what did he meant by In order "to truly learn from the Nazi holocaust," he asserts, "its physical dimension must be reduced and its moral dimension expanded."
A- What physical dimension must be reduced? are the researching historians receiving commands from Israel? or from a Jewish committee? Ykantor (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
If this is responding to anything that User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa said, I'm a loss to understand what it is. This mini-essay seems to a case for WP:NOTAFORUM as it does not in any way address the issue under debate and includes highly inappropriate inflammatory claims about alleged motivations. Paul B (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I accept that the alleged motivations are a case of WP:NOTAFORUM
- I wonder why JDiala accusations are accepted here with no remarks. He says that supposedly:
B-JDiala : " the Holocaust marked the climax of a fanatical, eternal Gentile hatred of Jews. This is,... interconnected with the view that a Jewish state is necessary, or Zionism. If the Holocaust was simply another genocide, and the Jews were just another victim of the many demographic groups the Nazis slaughtered, then the travail of European Jewry during that period fails to take on any unique significance, and thus the extreme thesis of an 'eternal', 'irrational' hatred becomes more flimsy." This is another anti Zionist propaganda. There is no necessary connection between the uniqueness and Zionism. Zionist ideas were promoted long before the Holocaust and hypothetically, if there was no Holocaust, the Zionists would be still advancing a Jewish state.
C-JDiala : "the extreme thesis of an 'eternal', 'irrational' hatred" . JDiala falsely present it as a Zionist attitude, which is not true. There is an ongoing relevant debate between scholars, but it is not related to Zionism. Surprisingly (for JDiala) , some main stream Zionist historian are opposing the 'eternal', 'irrational hatred' attitude.
D- JDiala :" people like you go to great lengths—absurdly great lengths, as you and Monochrome have shown—to maintain the Holocaust as a both unique and Jewish event". I have not said that at all, although I agree with it. My only claim was that Finkelstein is a "fringe" source, and should not be used. As Jdiala claims that "Holocaust historian, Raul Hilberg, agreed with the book's thesis", he could have quoted Hilberg and solve the problem.
E-- You should have known that a tag(e.g. "Elucidate") should not be deleted unless the issue is solved.
-you undeleted the sentence: "He writes that the reason these claims persist is because claims of Holocaust uniqueness also confer "unique entitlement" to Jews, and serve as "Israel's prize alibi". This sentence is an antisemitic propaganda and it is not directly referring to the issue of uniqueness. It is much better to explain Finkelstein view (e.g. why it not unique) as the "Elucidate" tag indicates. Ykantor (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I haven't read the work myself. Have both @Ykantor: and @JDiala: read it? I would be happier any conclusions about the book were being made having read it and reviews of it, rather than just reviews which may have their own agenda (eg trying to make it sound fantastic or deriding it as anti-Semitic). I should also point out here that anti-Israeli comments are not in themselves anti-Semitic.
However, the scentance quoted by Ykantor above does need to be rewritten so it is clear that that is Finkelstein's view. At the moment the only evidence of that in the wording it 'He writes'. Perhaps 'he argues' is more clear cut. Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk 17:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
@Ykantor: That is what is written in the work(I have the book). It is paraphrased; I have the actual quotes in the citation, so if you believe I erred in the paraphrase, you may point that out. I have offered arguments affirming the book's reliability as a source, so long as, again, its claims are attributed to the author. Unless you can respond to them, I see no reason why that particular claim should not be included. Labelling it "antisemetic" is simply not an argument. It's an emotive, loaded charge to exclude an otherwise reliable claim. JDiala (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- I will appreciate it if you refer to points A to E, mentioned previously.
- The antisemitic propaganda is consistently using the axioms:
It is inherent to Jews to cheat, tel lies, use their victims blood, and all sort of evil doing.
The Jews are powerful and controls a lot of states , organizations and companies. etc. the financial system, the movies industry, the U.S.A etc.
The Jews are well organized and the body which control the Jews is actually directing all those states , organizations and companies.
recently the terms Zionist or Israel are used instead of or together with the term Jews.
This Finkelstein sentence: Holocaust uniqueness also confer "unique entitlement" to Jews, and serve as "Israel's prize alibi, is based on those three Antisemitic axioms:
- I repeat: This sentence is not directly related to the Issue of uniqueness, and it is an antisemitic propaganda. Don't you think that it is better to highlight Finkelstein's view why the Holocaust is not unique? At the moment, the article has no such an explanation. Once this opinion is explained, then it could be proven wrong easily. Ykantor (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I asked Jdiala in his talkpage:I will appreciate it if you refer to my notes at  ((here)). thanks. Ykantor (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
@Ykantor: That is WP:OR. There may be fringe, radical people who believe that Finkelstein is an antisemite; however, that is simply a smear meant to delegitimize his work. He himself is Jewish, and son of Holocaust survivors. Again, I don't know how much more clear I have to make myself - you cannot remove an otherwise reliable source on the sole basis of the fact that you perceive it to be "antisemetic". This is no different than, say, a Muslim individual wanting to remove criticism of Islam on the basis that it is Islamophobic. That is absurd. Wikipedia is not censored. The extra sentence is there to provide context; he argues that the "unique entitlement" and "Israel's prize alibi" are reasons that the uniqueness theory exist. It is related to the topic at hand. Regarding your "A-E" points, again, the Zionism connection is irrelevant. If you found what I said offensive, well, I removed it. If you personally disagree with Finkelstein's argument in the book concerning the relationship between Israel and the uniqueness theory, that's fine but it's simply not pertinent to the core issue. The validity of his argument is not what the problem is, but rather whether or not his claims should be included. I see no reason why not. It provides balance to the "uniqueness" section. JDiala (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion Finkelstein views are Wikipedia:Fringe theories. User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa wrote here: "At most it falls under Wikipedia:Fringe theories, which warrants an inclusion stating that it is a controversial or minority viewpoint." User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa seems to know the policies, but what about " Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable."? (WP:PROFRINGE), or "According to Jimmy Wales:...Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether"?
Yours "a Muslim individual wanting to remove criticism of Islam on the basis that it is Islamophobic". Take for instance tthe Regensburg lecture Islamophobic incident. In my opion it shoud not be included in an article concerning Islam, because it is a fringe theory.
Yours: "The extra sentence is there to provide context; he argues that the "unique entitlement" and "Israel's prize alibi" are reasons that the uniqueness theory exist.".
As asked few times, it would be much better to cite Finkelstein facts and not generalized accusations. A fact might be verified or proven false, but "Israel's prize alibi" is something that I do not understand, and seems like an hot air. As an example, in his book "he Holocaust Industry" page 83 he says that some of those newly reclassified as holocaust survivors are 100000 polish Jews that found refuge in Russia and were saved. This is one of his examples for survivors numbers inflation. But, are they receiving reparation money? One lady in my family succeeded to run away to Russia and all of her family members were slaughtered., including a lot of cousins with children. She said she never received any reparation money. BTW if an individual is running away because his neighbor wants to kill him, is not he entitled to some penalty money from this neighbor? Ykantor (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. One of the key differences between the two is that a dictionary has one entry per word, while an encyclopedia has one entry per subject. The subject of this article is defined in the first sentence of the article, and the etymology of the word holocaust is covered in the first section after the lede. VQuakr (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand any of what you typed. Can you explain more clearly why the word is not being described as meaning what it means? Obotlig ☣interrogate 00:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The subject of this article is the Holocaust - the genocidal historical event occurring before and during WW2. This is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary, and we do not give alternative definitions of words in our articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The word has multiple meanings, and we have one article per notable meaning. See, for example, here and here. VQuakr (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Seems contrived. The word was chosen "arbitrarily" based on its meaning before World War II. So that's what the article should reflect that it means. Obotlig ☣interrogate 13:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Merriam-Webster gives the Nazi-related sense as the principal one, and then gives "burnt sacrifice" as the first in a chronological ordering of senses. In any case, we don't need a reference book to tell us that anybody talking about (or coming to Wikipedia to look up) "holocaust" is much more likely to be interested in the events of the 1930s and 1940s than in any other meaning! It is the primary meaning of the term in the English language now. Barnabypage (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Right, and the word was chosen by well educated people who knew exactly what it meant. Burnt sacrifice. There's no reason to omit this from the article because it certainly has not been an oversight in the use of the word. Merriam-Webster is very conscientious in its etymologies and the ordering of definitions. Holocaust plainly means, as a word, burnt sacrifice, and was chosen with that in mind because that was the traditional meaning. Obotlig ☣interrogate 16:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
M-W is clear that senses after the principal sense are given in chronological order, not order of importance. Its lexicographers may well be conscientious in ordering in that sense, but they are clearly not endorsing "burnt offering" as a meaning of any more importance than the others just by putting it at the top of the list. BTW, Oxford specifies the "burnt sacrifice" meaning as being "historical", Collins calls it "rare", and American Heritage notes a broadening of meaning since the 1600s.
In any case, as pointed out below, the "burnt sacrifice" meaning is referred to the in the article. I'm not actually sure how you're suggesting the article should be different...? Barnabypage (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
No, the word was not "chosen by well educated people who knew exactly what it meant." It wasn't really 'chosen' at all in any straightforward sense. In fact the word holocaust was very widely used for various large scale massacres before WWII, and also for destructive fires. It wasn't until the end of the 1970s that it became commonly used to refer to Nazi murders, following a TV series called Holocaust (note it wasn't called The Holocaust; even then the term was a word rather than a name. Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, for example never uses the word, and well into the 60s the most common meaning of a holocaust would have been the much-feared "nuclear holocaust"). It was simply a word that was commonly used for acts of obliterative mass muder and destruction, but which has in recent decades has come to be the standard term to apply to Nazi mass-murders. No group of people got together to decide on the choice of the word, it evolved in actual usage. In any case, as has already been pointed out, the article does discuss the etymology. Paul B (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree the word means what it means. Would someone mind fixing the lede to reflect the actual etymology and meaning? Obotlig ☣interrogate 18:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
No. This is an article on the genocide, not the word. Again, this is not a dictionary. VQuakr (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Please acquaint yourself with the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. Dictionaries are concerned with words, encyclopedias are concerned with subjects. The article is appropriate for the title. Acroterion(talk) 18:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing to fix. The article already discusses etymology in an appropriate section. Do you think the article on the Reign of Terror would be improved by having the evolving definitions and etymologies of 'reign' and 'terror' in the lede? Paul B (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Obotlig's previous rantings about Jews and race-mixing on other pages make it clear that he'd nothing but a sad neo-Nazi troll. Paul B (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not trolling, it doesn't make sense not to explain what the word means. It's your article, enjoy. Obotlig ☣interrogate 00:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
As several people have said - (a) the word primarily means the Nazi activity and thus the article's lede already does exactly what you're asking for, i.e. explaining what the term means; (b) because the word it also means - or at one time meant - a "burnt sacrifice", that is already explained on the page; (c) Wikipedia is mainly about broader subjects than words, and the article is about the subject "the Holocaust", not the word "holocaust". There is also already an article Holocaust (sacrifice), linked to this one via the disambiguation page, for those who want to know more about that subject.
If you still find the situation unsatisfactory could you spell out exactly what you think the lede ought to say, bearing in mind that its function is to be an overview and summary of the article as a whole? Barnabypage (talk) 08:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)