Talk:The Holocaust

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Holocaust)
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee The Holocaust was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject European history (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Jewish history (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Israel (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Judaism (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Discrimination (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Death (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Human rights (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Disaster management (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
News This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Supplemental
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.


Replace Poles with Slavs - its more accurate.[edit]

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."

To:

"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."--92.23.122.67 (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)
Since you didn't elaborate on how my commentary was "ill-informed", I'll assume that was an ad hominem and not pursue further. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Finkelstein[edit]

@Monochrome Monitor: @Ykantor: Please read WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:VERIFY. Note the Google citation index for the work: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=16867769263411460043&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en ; 389 results. It is thus a work of scholarship, a notable one at that. It's also hardly fringe, as lead Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg has defended its thesis, and many reviewers have defended it. The book has its own article, and is very notable—much more so than the other works which were cited. It is published, notable and claims made by it are attributed to it. There is no reason for it to be excluded. 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. JDiala (talk) 20:11, 8 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.
@Ykantor:. No one here is denying The Holocaust, there is no reason to go there. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 00:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
@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:NPOV Blaue 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.

@JDiala :

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 Agrippa Talk 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:
  1. It is inherent to Jews to cheat, tel lies, use their victims blood, and all sort of evil doing.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 [1] ((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"?
  • FYours "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)
@Ykantor: Your personal critiques of Finkelstein's work are somewhat irrelevant. Practically all works of scholarship are, in one way or another, flawed, but they can nevertheless be included. Most of his statistics are taken from Raul Hilberg. Fringe theories, in certain circumstances, may be included so long as they are not undue. Finkelstein's work, at least in the uniqueness section, takes up no more than a single sentence, which is fair. It's not some elaborate section discussing how the Holocaust has been exploited; it's a mere sentence, and it's only there to balance out the other "uniquneness" claims, which clearly trivialize the deaths of non-Jews both during the Nazi period and other genocides. JDiala (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  1. Yours: "Finkelstein's work, at least in the uniqueness section, takes up no more than a single sentence". Yes, but the sentence has no substance. Although repeatedly asking, you still do not state a factual sentence, and continue with the "hot air" attitude, of supposedly Israeli exploiting it for benefits: "claims of Holocaust uniqueness also confer "unique entitlement" to Jews, and serve as "Israel's prize alibi". Sorry, but this is a pure antisemitic propaganda. Where are the facts? what "unique entitlement" was received by the Jews? what are the supposed benefits for Israel? The propaganda could have been avoided if Finkelstein factual reasons were used.
  2. Gyours: ""uniquneness" claims, which clearly trivialize the deaths of non-Jews both during the Nazi period and other genocides." The article states: "Since the 1960s, the term has come to be used by scholars and popular writers to refer specifically to the Nazi genocide of Jews.". You want to extend the term "Holocaust" and include other Nazi massacres and killing, but to limit it to the WW2 period (if I understand you). In Holocaust (disambiguation) the term is extended further and includes "Sikh Holocaust, either of two 18th century mass killings" too. Is there any limit to the extension process? if the Armenian Genocide is not included in the term Holocaust, are the Armenians victims "clearly trivialize"d? Ykantor (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
@Ykantor: Yes, but the sentence has no substance That is your opinion. Those are the views expressed by a reliable source. I could just as well say those other "uniqueness" claims lack substance, which they indeed do. Sorry, but this is a pure antisemitic propaganda. Where are the facts? what "unique entitlement" was received by the Jews? Again, I have to keep repeating myself. Because you think it's antisemetic doesn't make it so, nor does it mean it isn't reliable. Finkelstein is a Jew. Finkelstein is the son of Holocaust survivors. I highly doubt he is "antisemetic". Finkelstein has elaborate arguments in his book, but going in depth would be giving him too much weight. If you would like, however, for me to quote other passages from the book which document the issue more thoroughly, I would be happy to do so. In Holocaust (disambiguation) the term is extended further and includes This is because the term "holocaust" is a generic term. There is a difference from the word "holocaust" and The Holocaust, which is concerned with the events of World War 2. Ethnic Poles, Gypsies, Homosexuals, etc. were all murdered in the same way, under the same circumstances, as the Jews were. This is why the issue is in dispute. JDiala (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
There are objective issues with calling the Holocaust "just another genocide of another ethnic group". For you to say such a thing matches your earlier rhetoric denying Israel's right to exist. Your dubious knowledge about the Zionist movement, which began a century before the Holocaust, confirms this. Hitler's efforts to exterminate the Jewish people dwarfed that of any other ethnic group—the final death toll reflecting this. Jews comprise a majority of deaths in the 11 million figure, and comprise 75% of the civilian deaths in this figure, as Soviet POWs do not fit under the definition of genocide. Disabled Germans also do not qualify under the definition of genocide, nor do homosexuals and political dissidents, but only ethnic and religious groups. Jews and Roma were killed for simply *being*, while Leftists/homosexuals/etc. could be rehabilitated, as they weren't "enemies of the race-based state". 67-78% of Jews in Europe were massacred, proportionally orders of magnitude higher than these groups for whom Nazi crimes were not a genocide. The Auschwitz death toll was 90% Jewish, and the death facilities were intended originally for Jews, but accommodated others when it was deemed convenient. For Jews and Roma, Nazi crimes were genocide dwarfing the normal horrors of war. All other groups mentioned had a net population increase, not something normally associated with a "holocaust". You continue to trivialize the Shoah and the Pojramos by insisting all Nazi crimes, regardless of scope/nature/intent, be compared to two genocides. I find your obvious bias and ownership of a book regarded my many as antisemitic concerning. (For those who doubt the book is antisemitic, it is endorsed by David Duke.) --Monochrome_Monitor 02:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
- @ JDiala:
- What about points F, G (above)?
- In my opinion Finkelstein words are not sufficiently related to the issue, and should be replaced with his other ideas concerning the "unique" aspect directly and not by a supposed Jewish / Israeli motivation which is a pure antisemitic propaganda. Ykantor (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ykantor:Point F is a false analogy. The uniqueness issue and its criticisms warrant inclusion in the Holocaust article. Every single Islamophobic incident does not warrant inclusion in the Islam article. I addressed point G. I disagree with your opinion. I offered an argument against it, you haven't responded. JDiala (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
@Monochrome Monitor: No, there is nothing wrong with calling the Holocaust just another genocide. That is precisely what it was. The amount of tragedies in world history, and in the 20th century in particular, which have resulted in deaths within the order of magnitude of the Holocaust are in the dozens at least. This is a common habit among people like yourself, rabid Jewish nationalists, pouncing on every opportunity to trivialize the deaths of other peoples[Note that Israel denies the Armenian genocide], whilst the suffering of your people has a "special status", so to speak. Thus if one person is killed from so-called Hamas rockets[upgraded fireworks], it is an international tragedy. But if you kill thousands of Palestinians, it is just an accident. Only the lives of the chosen people matter, after all. It's no coincidence that there are more Holocaust museums in the United States than there are Armenian Genocide memorials, or, for that matter, Rwandan genocide memorials, even though that was much more recent. This is interrelated with the Israel lobby as, again, discussed in the book. Finkelstein wrote a PhD thesis on Zionism. You're a teenager, judging from your birth date. His view on Zionism and its relation to the Holocaust industry is considerably more relevant than your personal opinion. That is why this was mentioned. Moreover, your exclusion of Soviet POWs is inexplicable, as is the exclusion of homosexuals, disabled Germans or political dissidents. The problem is that you're using the legal definition of genocide, which is much too rigid and, in large part, disassociated from moral reprehensibility of a particular crime. Thus if a particular subset of the mass-murdered group of people did not happen to fall into a defined [rather arbitrarily at that] category, such as ethnic or religious, they were not "real" victim, goes your logic. A number of scholars, in our case Finkelstein, but others as well as shown in the 'casualties' section, however, who have a moral compass, are able to see that, in principle, there was nothing particularly different from the mass murder, ideologically motivated, of these other groups than that of the Jews. They were considered untermensch. They were not considered members of the ideal Volksgemeinschaft. Thus they were exterminated. This is why this viewpoint is noted in the lead. Regarding David Duke, there is a serious difference between an anti-Semite giving a book a good review, and the book itself being objectively anti-Semetic. I have to repeatedly mention that Finkelstein is a Jew, a son of Holocaust survivors, and he has received praise for his work from the foremost authority on the Holocaust, Raul Hilberg. JDiala (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
I am not a "rabid Jewish nationalist". That's laughable. I'm a Labor Zionist and a liberal.

As for the Armenian genocide, Israel does de facto recognize it as a genocide. There are plenty of Armenian genocide memorials ----Monochrome_Monitor 04:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)in Israel. You are not helping your case by throwing around the "Jewish supremacist" and "chosen people" canard that Jews don't care about non-Jews. Hamas rockets are not "upgraded fireworks", and there is actually very little media attention when Israelis are killed in terror attacks—much less than attacks in any other Western country. As for the "Finklestein is Jewish" point, I know. He abuses his ethnic Jewishness as an excuse. He may not hate Jews himself, but he peddles in Jew hatred. "We are all Hezbollah". What drivel. And the book itself is rather ahistorical, like its revisionism of the Six Day War.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: No, you're not a "liberal". The doublethink is strong in this one. How can one be liberal yet support ethnocracy, or ethnicity-based states? Regarding the Armenian genocide, de facto recognition is irrelevant. De jure recognition is what counts. Can you imagine the backlash if a state officially denied the Holocaust? Think Iran[though, even there, statements by the state leaders have been inconsistent]. Yet states routinely deny the Armenian Genocide. What possible explanation could there be for this double standard? This is where Finkelstein's thesis comes in - the industry. Also, the "revisionism" of the six-day war, if you consider "revisionism" to be anything contrary to the thesis that Israel was defending itself from an imminent attack, is more or less the scholarly consensus. There is copious literature repudiating that thesis, from Israeli scholars, though getting into this would be veering away much too significantly from what this article is about. Hezbollah is a resistance organization; I also support it. It has the right to defend itself from foreign invaders. That is, though, again, irrelevant. Levelling these vicious personal attacks against a man - an honest, principled man - who lost tenure at his university because the Israel lobby didn't like what he says, is ultimately irrelevant when it comes to Wikipedia policy. The book is reliable. The book is published. And, lastly, the book itself is much more relevant and serious than, say, the pseudo-scholarship by Jewish supremacists like Steven Katz ["The Holocaust is the only genocide that has occurred in history"] which is allowed to remain in the "uniqueness" section without controversy (if it's anti-Semetic to include Finkelstein, is it not "anti"-every other group who's been the victim of a genocide to include Steven Katz?)? JDiala (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
So far, 1. You believe Israel has no right to exist. I've met many Arabs more liberal than yourself in that regards. 2. You deny Jews are indigenous to the Land of Israel, revisionism in its own right. 3. You support Hezbollah, a terrorist organization. Was bombing a Jewish community center "resistance"? It wasn't even Israelis they were killing, it was just Jews.

I am a liberal, in the real definition of the word—not *your* double-think version. I believe Jews, as a long-persecuted minority, have the right to a state where they can safely exercise self-determination. I also believe that Kurds and Tibetans have the right to a state, does that make me "ethnocratic"? I believe that Palestinians have the right to a state, though I have some reasonable reservations out of concern for the prospect of a lasting peace. Self-determination is not "ethnocracy". What is ethnocracy is Abbas's future Palestinian state, where Jews will not be able to have citizenship—it will be completely Judenrein. What is ethnocracy is Algeria, where Berbers are forced to give their children Arab names, or Turkey, where Kurdish is banned from being taught in public schools. I disagree with Katz, his view is wrong. There have been many genocides. However, in the Nazi Genocide, the primary victims were Jews, and the secondary victims were Romani. I am very moderate, actually quite left-leaning, while YOU are the extremist. Who do you purport to represent? Palestinians will never have a state if they adopt your rejectionist attitude. The Middle East will never see peace. You do not have anyone's interests in mind but your own. You are just another white European who thinks they know what's good for people thousands of miles away. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: I just disagree with you there, then. Any form of liberalism which is opposed to very fundamental things, such as anti-racism, anti-discrimination, is opposed to human rights and human equality irrespective of race, which would include your conception of 'self determination', is not liberalism. There's one difference between the other groups you pointed out and the Jews- those other groups, the Kurds or the Tibetans, for example, either have or have had their land - within which their national identity has historically been based- controlled by a foreign power. Another example would be the resistance during the British occupation of India, like the Mutiny of 1857. This form of self determination, an oppressed people rising up and controlling their lives in their land is fine. The construct of Zionism, however, is different - it posits that a certain group migrate to someone else's land, kick them out, and call that self determination based on a quasi-religious form of nationalist irredentism ["my ancestors from thousands of years ago lived there"] which is so absurd it needn't be took seriously. Thus when you say Israel must remain a "Jewish state", you're legitimizing ethnic cleansing. Palestine is a land which belongs to two peoples. The idea that a single people can control all of it is ethnocracy. [the "Judenrein" card is, as with most other Zionist arguments, also a joke. Those foreign settlers are ideologically motivated migrants bent on dispossessing the Native population and stealing their land. Kicking them out isn't an injustice; it's quite righteous]. And yes, bombing that community centre [Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina] was resistance. This was in 1994 - when Israel was occupying Southern Lebanon. I see nothing immoral in what Hezbollah did. It's a fraction of the people that IDF killed as it was bombing and besieging Beirut(have you read "Pity the Nation"?). It was unintelligent, but not immoral. Again, however, we're seriously digressing. Finkelstein is reliable. Ykantor has not replied to my points. I will thus remove the "further clarification" tags. If 'further clarification' is needed for Finkelstein's statement, then it is also needed for Katz' statement. Regarding the issue of the Gypsies and the Jews being the "only victims" the genocide, that is, again, a view a number of scholars dissent from, and that controversy is noted in the lead. Around 46% of the victims of the slaughter were not Jews. Thus there's no reason Jews should be conferred a special status. That is an insult to the Poles, the Gypsies, the Soviet POWs, the Slavs and the homosexuals who were also victims of the Holocaust. JDiala (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Zionism IS oppressed people rising up and controlling their lives in their land—it had little to do with the Holocaust. Israel exists despite the Holocaust, not because of it. The British embargoed Israel—it didn't want the Jews to have a state at all, it even deported Jews to detention camps in Africa as they fled the Holocaust. The land never belonged to Arabs in the first place—that's revisionism. Likewise, Iran never belonged to Arabs, it belonged to Persians. Turkey never belonged to Arabs, it belonged to Turks. Morocco never belonged to Arabs, it belonged to the Berbers. These are not controversial. Israel never belonged to Arabs, it has only ever legitimately belonged to Jews. The Arabs in the region were all nomadic peoples, like the Bedouin. The land certainly didn't belong to the Ottomans or the Romans. "Palestine" is a word invented by the Romans who enslaved and ethnically cleansed the Jewish population of Roman-occupied Judea. You claim you are a liberal yet support ethnic cleansing. You think in black in white—"evil colonizer Jews versus angelic Palestinians". That's not liberalism, and it certainly isn't anti-racist. You deny Arabs any moral agency by defending terrorist acts as "resistance". The truth is quite more nuanced. I don't support settlement policies, but it's ridiculous to claim they are inherently malicious. Likewise, it is disingenuous to say that a "jewish state" means that other peoples won't have rights. That's nonsense, and the opposite of Jewish ethics. A Jewish state just means it's a place where the majority of people are Jews. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think your justification of the AIMA bombing proves a prejudice against Jews worthy of an A/I ban. That's just disgusting. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

to JDiala:
You have not yet replied properly to my point F and G.
- Uniqueness. There is an Porajmos, the Romani genocide article. Will you accept that the Jewish genocide should have its own article too ? The name of this article is of secondary importance.
- Finkelstein views are absurds, but he could still be considered as an historian with such views. The problem is Finkelstein's factual statements, that a lot of them are mistakes. I asked you repeatedly to provide factual quotes, and it is a pity that you do not provide them. The Judge of Irving v Penguin Books Ltd case, found that David Irving is indeed an Holocaust denier , based on a meticulous examination of his factual finding. e.g. " Irving had knowingly used forged documents as source material.". Similarly, Finkelstein should be checked for facts and not for his "hot air" which can not be proven or unproven.
- The Israeli government does not stand behind the Armenian Genocide, which is a shame. The reason is the same one that cause government to ignore the Tibetian people oppression and their justified demand for independence. i.e real politics. But still , Israel does not deny it.
-Any justification of killing of innocent civilians, whether Jews or Arabs, is disgusting. Please Apologize.
- Yours "Those foreign settlers are ideologically motivated migrants bent on dispossessing the Native population and stealing their land.". Please check what really happened. The poor Fellahin were oppressed by their own Arab brothers, who lent them money with high interest rate so they could not pay the loans and lost their land, or the Arab feudal lords that took a too high share of their serial production. That happened under both Ottoman and Mandatory rules and was reported in local Arab newspapers . The Arab villages near Jewish areas were growing fast because they there were available jobs, while far Arab villages were hardly growing.
- yours: "Palestine is a land which belongs to two peoples." Definitely true. Since the Arabs and the Jews can not live together, the only solution is a partition. Unfortunately, the Arabs always fought against a partition and for one state in all of Palestine. Thankfully, nowadays some of them agree to a partition, but together with the "right of return" . The Israeli public, like any other public will never accept the "right of return" that transform Israel to one more Arab state with a Jewish minority. In my opinion, this is the major (and probably the only) obstacle for peace.
- Is not it better to look for a better future for both Arabs and Israelis rather than engaging in eternal wars and shootings? Why won't we try to have a better future for newborn babies, whether Israeli or Arab? Ykantor (talk) 07:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree about precedent set in Porajmos. Likewise, the Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek genocides are all different articles, when they occurred simultaneously. --Monochrome_Monitor 13:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
@Monochrome Monitor: Worthy of an A/I ban? Ah, so Jewish supremacists like yourself can "justify" the IDF's crimes, all of which are considerably greater than magnitude than that of Hezbollah, but I can't support the Lebanese resistance? Try me. The only "revisionists" here are you. It's rather clear from the arguments you're using. It's textbook Zionist propaganda; practically copied and pasted from a hasbara handbook, contrary to the scholarly consensus expressed even by right-wing Israeli historians. For example, you noted that the name Palestine was introduced by the Romans. Normally, in the English language, if a region has been called something for nearly 2000 years, the appropriate response is not that the name is "falsified" or "erroneous", but the recognition of the fact that that is now the name. The name itself, evidently, predates the English language. For the entire history of the English language, Palestine has been referred to as Palestine. How, then, is Palestine not the correct name? If you referred to every region what it was called since before the First Century AD, we would have much different names for regions, then, wouldn't we. Zionism IS oppressed people rising up and controlling their lives in their land you and I have a different conception of "their" land, then, clearly. You believe in quasi-religious nationalist mythology that "because my ancestors lived there" it is my land. It needn't be noted that two milennia of non-Jewish settlement in Palestine voids Jews' "right" to that land, except in Romantic nationalist ideologies - which, by the way, are antithetical to the precepts of liberalism - which, if implemented, would and have resulted in an utter catastrophe and immeasurable human suffering. The Joan Peters-esque propaganda thesis that the Palestinians are all "migrants" or "nomads" is the real revisionism, and the fact that you'd even resort to such a crude argument goes to show the depths of your ignorance. The erroneous attempts to analogize the right to Arab self determination in Iran and Turkey, which is, of course, farcical, with their right to self determination in Palestine, a land in which they've lived in for centuries, again, simply demonstrates how you disassociated you are from reality. Palestine is a land in which Arabs live and have lived - and one in which they've lived for centuries. Thus, it's their land. It's not a particularly difficult concept to grasp - they lived there, and thus they have a superior claim to it than foreign European migrants, regardless of the "arguments" presented, devoid not only of moral value but of ancestral and genetic value as well. Regarding the Porajmos, that name is scarcely used. The article itself notes that "The term is used mostly by activists and is unknown to most Roma, including relatives of victims and survivors". I addressed this on your talk page, yet you seemed to have deleted it. Also, read the sources cited in the Porajmos article; most of them use the term Holocaust. Again, no one knows what the "Porajmos" is. It's an unknown term, and, the false comparisons the Greek genocide, which occurred in an entirely different context with that of the Nazis, as I noted on your talk page. The Holocaust was not a singular process directed against a particular single ethnic group, but a number of different demographics residing within Nazi-occupied Europe which did not conform to what was thought of as an ideal unit of the Volksgemeinschaft. The war itself was one of extermination - all of the humans considered untermensch or potentially subversive by the Nazi regime were liquidated. There was no "special" suffering the Jews went through. You claim that you don't judge people as "collectives", yet your repeated stress on the "Jewish"[ethnic-collective] nature of this tragic crime tells me that that's simply false; you see the world through an ethnic lens; my "people, your "people", and this genocide was only of "my" people and you're not a part of it. Quite exclusionist, is it not? Again, I addressed most of this on your talkpage, which you inexplicably deleted. Moreover, the Gypsies and the Jews were not the only victims of the Nazi holocaust. The Poles were as well, as were the Russian POWs. The first victims were the disabled people and the political dissenters. You may bring up the legal definition of genocide, but that's extraneous; WP:OR. A number of scholars, including the US Holocaust museum have have defined it to include all of the peoples, and, regardless as to whether or not racists like yourself want to deliberately exclude non-Jews, it's evidently an opinion expressed by some scholars and thus that controversy must be noted, especially when we also have a Holocaust victims article which includes them also. JDiala (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This is WP:NOTAFORUM. Please confine yourselves to discussing ways to use information from reliable sources to improve the article. Also consider WP:TLDR(Hohum @) 02:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ykantor: Uniqueness - The point isn't just whether or not the Holocaust is the Jewish genocide. It's also whether or not its unique, and, of course, the Hollande issue which you seem to ignore.
  • If factual quotes are to be provided from Finkelstein, then why not from Steven Katz? He provided no evidence that the Holocaust is unique. Besides, it's not necessary that every claim is necessarily elaborated. Regarding David Irving, he doesn't express his own personal opinion, but that of Raul Hilberg and a reviewer Gordon Craig.
  • I responded to both points(G,F). If you're dissatisfied with my response, you need to tell me exactly what it is you're dissatisfied with.
  • As Hohum noted, we must abide by WP:NOTFORUM and keep the discussion on topic [ie, stop the Israel-Palestine discussion]. JDiala (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Being a Zionist does not make me a "Jewish supremacist". It means I believe in the self-determination of the Jewish people. You should not use the English name for Israel, "Palestine", for the same reason you don't call Beijing "Peking", or Mumbai "Bombay". It's inaccurate and Anglo-centric. Arabs in the Mandate for "Palestine" considered it to be a Zionist term, and preferred calling the land "Southern Syria". You refer to the fallacy that Jews only returned to Israel after 2000 years in diaspora, this is simply not true. There has been an unabated Jewish presence in the land which only declined during the Roman and Ottoman occupations. I am not saying that all Arab Palestinians are nomadic. I'm saying that the majority of native Arab populations were nomadic, and the land-owning populations were mostly Turks, not Arabs (Turks were given preferential treatment under the Ottomans).
As for Arabs living there for hundreds of years, this is true. But long-standing presence is not the same as indigeniety—you do not earn native status simply for conquering the natives and living on their land for a few centuries. As for referring to Jews as European migrants, that's blatant revisionism. Even while in diaspora, Jews were culturally and genetically isolated and were never considered "European" in any way.
"...The erroneous attempts to analogize the right to Arab self determination in Iran and Turkey, which is, of course, farcical, with their right to self determination in Palestine, a land in which they've lived in for centuries"—that line alone is proof of your cognitive dissonance. You only think Arabs are indigenous to the region of Palestine—which they aren't—because of Soviet/PLO propaganda since 1967. The truth is Arabs are just as indigenous to "Palestine"—that is, they conquered the land via imperialism—as they are to Iran and Turkey. Or if you prefer, Persia and Troy, the Greek words for the region, since you prefer the Greek word "Palestine" for ישׁראל. Ironically, "Palestinian" used to be synonymous with "Jewish", but we'll not go there.
The Holocaust of the Jews was a result of Nazi antisemitism— a unique and particularly virulent strain of larger Nazi racism. Jews were not, as you claim, "killed in the same ways for the same reasons as everyone else". Only Jews and Romani were "enemies of the race-based state", killed for simply being, irredeemable. Death camps were reserved for Jews and Romani likewise, though some Poles and Soviet POWS were sent to labor camps. Soviet POWS were combatants, and Poles weren't actively ghettoized and murdered at an industrial scale, though they did suffer heinous war crimes. The Nazis killed different groups for very different reasons on a very different scale—deserving of different articles. Exactly the same as the different articles for the Greek, Assyrian, and Armenian Genocides.
You calling me racist is obvious projection. Having an ethno-religious affiliation does not make me a "racist". It just means Europeans like yourself haven't succeeded in colonizing my identity. My opinion is a perfectly sane one on the spectrum of the Arab/Israeli conflict. Yours is not. You justified the intentional murder of innocents because they were Jews. If there was a user justifying the intentional murder of Arabs, they would also be deserving of a ban. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to reply, but I don't want this to continue on this page. Feel free to email. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Finkelstein, Session 2[edit]

@JDiala:: open points:

-F 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 opinion it shoud not be included in an article concerning Islam, because it is a fringe theory.

-G yours: ""uniquneness" claims, which clearly trivialize the deaths of non-Jews both during the Nazi period and other genocides." The article states: "Since the 1960s, the term has come to be used by scholars and popular writers to refer specifically to the Nazi genocide of Jews.". You want to extend the term "Holocaust" and include other Nazi massacres and killing, but to limit it to the WW2 period (if I understand you). In Holocaust (disambiguation) the term is extended further and includes "Sikh Holocaust, either of two 18th century mass killings" too. Is there any limit to the extension process? if the Armenian Genocide is not included in the term Holocaust, are the Armenians victims "clearly trivialize"d?

- H Uniqueness. There is an Porajmos, the Romani genocide article. Will you accept that the Jewish genocide should have its own article too ? The name of this article is of secondary importance.

Concerning point G. If I understand you well, you claim that excluding other major disasters from the term Holocaust is trivializing the other millions of murdered people. But then You justify an exclusion of the Armenian genocide from the term Holocaust since it occurred before the 2nd world war. But when you search in google books for the terms (Armenian "holocaust") you receive a list of books that call it an Holocaust. So by a logical extension of your call, you trivialize the Armenians victim. (This is of course a logical exercise only, and I do not accuse you in anything).

-Concerning point H, what is your opinion? We can separate the Jewish Shoa article (a temporary name) from the general Holocaust article and thus avoiding endless (including some antisemitic) arguments about the "uniqueness".

-Concerning point F, you equate removal of Finkelstein antisemitic sentence from the article to "a Muslim individual wanting to remove criticism of Islam on the basis that it is Homophobic". I agree that the Regensburg lecture should not be mentioned in articles about Muhammad or Islam, and on the same token, Finkelstein pure antisemitic note 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"" should be removed here. Ykantor (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Definition of "Holocaust"[edit]

M-W has this meaning a "burnt sacrifice". Obotlig interrogate 12:49, 14 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)

Hollande[edit]

Why the hell are Hollande's personal views in the article? In a quote box, even! Why is this politician singled out for special attention`? May I add the thoughts of every politician I can find? or is Hollande uniquely special? --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hollande is the president of France, a country with a complex and important connection to the Holocaust. He is not some random politician. The quote is of a public speech, not his private thoughts. Whether to include a quote is subject to editorial discretion, and similar to photographs, inclusion of additional quotes is subject to diminishing returns. Specifically, adding the thoughts of every politician you can find would violate WP:POINT. If you think a different quote (or no quote at all) would better improve our readers' understanding of the subject, by all means please share your ideas. VQuakr (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
"The quote is of a public speech, not his private thoughts."
His personal opinion remains just that, regardless of whether it is expressed publicly or privately.
"France, a country with a complex and important connection to the Holocaust."
The criteria for including politicians' personal views on one or another aspect of the Holocaust is their country having "a complex and important connection to the Holocaust"? But then we need to include the personal opinions of British, German, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian, Italian, Romanian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian… you get the idea—unless, of course, there is some reason why the French president is so special.
"If you think a different quote (or no quote at all) would better…"
Yes, I think the personal opinions of politicians with precisely zero experience of, knowledge of, and involvement with the event—Hollande wasn't even born when it happened, and has probably read less of the secondary literature than even you and I have—ought not to be included. Hollande is not a Holocaust scholar, survivor, perpetrator… anything. He's just a deeply unpopular French politician. Unless, as I said in my first post above, there is a reason why this particular French politician is so special and important that his personal opinions are not only mentioned in the article but given the same level of prominence, by virtue of being dumped in a quote box, as leading authorities like Raul Hilberg—well, then he ought to be snipped out. All the quote amounts to is "the most unpopular French president in history thinks the Holocaust is unique"; in all honesty, this doesn't really add anything to what what is already too-long article.
To summarise:
1) Hollande is not a Holocaust scholar, survivor, witness…
2) Given 1), the quote can add nothing to an article that is already too long.
3) Given 1), there is no reason to mention, let alone highlight, this French politician's personal views.
--YeOldeGentleman (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I find it hard to disagree. Though the quote is elegant and fits well structurally, but there's no particular reason to care about Hollande's opinion. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
A quote can have value because it is elegant and fits well structurally. Hollande is the French head of state, as such I find the discounting of what he says during public speeches as "personal opinion" to be quite silly. Similarly, I find the criteria that you suggest - that a quote may only be useful if the source is a Holocaust survivor, scholar, or witness - to be arbitrary. It is perfectly acceptable for us to pick a quote and use it, and even if there are a multitude of equally useful quotes available we are under no obligation to use them all. If we think the article is too long, though, I guess it is as good as any place to cut out. VQuakr (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I think the quote should be kept. It represents the uniqueness argument pretty well, whereas we have other quotes that dissent with the uniqueness theory. If the article is too long, we should make separate articles for German crimes against each minority group, so as to not lump all groups together under the word "holocaust". It's good that it documents it, but considering the Holocaust is usually considered to be the genocide of Jews, semantically, I think to address length we should split this into a few different articles. For example, Pojramos, Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs, Action T4, etc, repeat some information mentioned here. A similar precedent would be the split between the Armenian and Assyrian Genocides. We could then put Holocaust in a larger page on "Nazi crimes against humanity". --Monochrome_Monitor 22:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, the quote should be kept. Ykantor (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
"In my opinion, the quote should be kept."
But your unsupported opinion is not relevant, since this is not a voting exercise.
we have other quotes that dissent with the uniqueness theory
Not in quote boxes we don't! And you've ignored the fact that all the other quotes are by people who actually know something about it. Hollande is just some French politician, just another guy on the street as far as personal involvement and knowledge go! All the responses here ignored the point that Hollande is no authority or anything. As it stands, his views are granted the same import as survivors and people have dedicated their entire lives to studying it. Why on earth is this situation acceptable? It's actually pretty insulting. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
No, it is not insulting. Being melodramatic is unhelpful. Hollande is (as I noted above) the French head of state. Characterizing what he says in an official capacity as a "personal opinion" is silly. @Monochrome Monitor: I think you and I are the only ones who have voiced any usable support for keeping the quote. What about losing the quotebox and just quoting Hollande inline? VQuakr (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
It is insulting to suggest that the most unpopular French president in history is in the same league as Holocaust survivors and Holocaust scholars. Nothing melodramatic about that, just stating the obvious.
"Characterizing what he says in an official capacity as a "personal opinion" is silly."
You keep conflating speaking in public and private with, respectively, objective and subjective statements. His personal opinion is just that, regardless of whether it is expressed in public or in private. I am uncertain how I can make myself clearer on this point, it seems really quite obvious.
"Hollande is (as I noted above) the French head of state."
You did, but I am still awaiting why this fact is of any relevance when he is talking about something he knows no more about than a layman. The same argument can be presented by me if I introduced a quote by the Polish president, the Queen of England, and so on for the head of state of any country touched by the Holocaust. And France was by no means the most touched by it: that tragic honour belongs to Poland. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- @VQuakr, Monochrome Monitor: : Will you please count me as a supporter as well. Ykantor (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The same argument can be presented by me if I introduced a quote by the Polish president, the Queen of England, and so on for the head of state of any country touched by the Holocaust. Not an argument for removal of the quote in question. Politicians, particularly heads of state, speaking in a public capacity are speaking on behalf of the countries they represent. They also do not independently write their speeches. I have said nothing about objective or subjective statements. VQuakr (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Why do you have such a problem with Hollande? He's the Prime Minister of France, The Vichy Regime was active in executing the Holocaust, and France didn't acknowledge this role for fifty years or so. The fact that he called relativism trivialization, in this unique position, is very notable. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Note how two of the three "supporters" are self-identified pro-Zionist Jews. This demographic issue is, it seems, resulting in serious structural bias in this article in general. Ignore all the other massacres of the 20th century, they're all insignificant compared to the shoah. Thus we must have a section on "uniqueness". Any criticism of this uniqueness section, even if by a Jewish scholar, mustn't be included, and must be deleted (often sneakily as Monochrome did a few months ago) without consensus. If this criticism is to be retained, it must have a "further clarification" tag and every aspect of it, even if it only comprises a sentence, must be scrutinized word-for-word(what Ykantor did). Only the lives of the chosen people matter after all. Goyim's deaths are "ordinary", whilst ours are "unique", and if you disagree, you're an "anti-Semite". This attitude is likely Talmudic in origin, which documents in copious detail the Jewish religious contempt for gentiles. Regardless, I wholly agree with the proposal - the box should be removed. You can't go around creating boxes for every statement you personally happen to like, even if it is a head of state. If it was a quote by, say, Himmler, or Eichmann, or someone else directly connected with the event, it would be fine, but not Hollande. Those were his personal views.JDiala (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Please confine discussion on ways to improve the article, and do not comment on other editors per WP:SOAPBOX, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.

Peruvian Rescuer[edit]

Please include Madeleine Truel in the list of individual rescuers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.237.119.116 (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Deaths/victims section[edit]

A couple pounts. 1) I think the deaths of the Romani need to be updated. Most modern estimates put it at half a million or more, not 90k - 200k states. Those are old numbers. For example, the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porajmos puts the estimated number of deaths at 200k MINIMUM, and an upper bound at 1.5 million.

2) I think it's a bit jarring to classify the deaths as "Jews" and "non-Jews" in the table of contents, especially because the "non-Jews" sections add up to be much longer than the Jews in terms of wordcount. So, just from an organizational viewpoint, perhaps give the bigger groups (various ethnic Slavs, Romani, etc) their own entries in the table of contents rather than just lumping them all together as "non-Jews".

Section Plagiarism: Climax and "Blood for Goods" - Admin Editors, consider deleting[edit]

The entire sections titled "Climax' and "Blood for Goods" are both plagiarized VERBATIM (pages 186-189) from the e-book entitled, Allah and Space by Dr Anwar El-Shahawy. See the link for yourself: https://books.google.com/books?id=nNX0158kTTcC&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=Kaltenbrunner+and+Eichmann,+under+Himmler%27s+close+supervision,+oversaw+the+climax+of+the+%27Final+Solution&source=bl&ots=iH8abVE4XZ&sig=Ee_LEynqY8wruyLjXv8HmBgRKt0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cYC5VIzWHOvNygP6v4HwDQ&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Kaltenbrunner%20and%20Eichmann%2C%20under%20Himmler's%20close%20supervision%2C%20oversaw%20the%20climax%20of%20the%20'Final%20Solution&f=false

That might explain why it has remained unsourced/uncited by the person who originally edited it for quite some time. Since I am not administratively empowered, I will leave the DELETION of these plagiarized sections to one of you so endowed. --Obenritter (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the book copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around. That section looks about the same as it did in 2008, while the ebook was published in 2010. You do not need to be an admin to edit this article, however. VQuakr (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You may be correct VQuakr - I guess I hadn't considered people plagiarizing from Wikipedia for profit. Perhaps there are legal measures available against the author if this is the case. BTW - I am fully aware of my rights to edit since I have done so extensively for Wikipedia - but thanks anyway. My impression/understanding has been that deleting large sections was reserved for admins --Obenritter (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Obenritter:, you don't have to be an admin to delete any amount from an article. As long as you explain yourself in the edit summary or talk page, otherwise your edit would be reverted as vandalism. As for the book, that has to be the strangest I have ever seen. Weirdly, on the copyright page it is listed as a work of fiction. I agree with VQuakr; it has simply copied a section of the article. There is a ban on using wikipedia content for profit (IE what he is doing by selling a book) even though it is okay to re-use for non-profit if it is attributed. Not sure who to inform about the copyright infringement though. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 23:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Gaia Octavia Agrippa (great nic by the way) - I found this book bizarre and have exposed other uses of it in Third Reich/Nazi related articles on Wikipedia. If it is indeed a copyright infringement, I would love to see the book REMOVED from Google and the internet, period. Edit summary explanations (which I normally provide in detail) will be the vehicle I employ in the future should I ever feel the need to omit a large segment. Since I am not sure that this article segment is otherwise plagiarized and this may be the inverse, I may just go line-by-line and edit/source this accordingly should the urge strike. --Obenritter (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there is nothing in the Wikipedia creative commons license in of itself which prevents properly-attributed reuse for profit. There are several publishers who regularly produce entire books copied verbatim from Wikipedia - and as long as they comply with the license terms, are legally entitled to do so, even if the morality of such is questionable. If material is copied without attribution, it is almost certainly a breach of copyright, though the only people able to take action on this are the copyright holders - which is to say the authors of the article, not the WMF, who have no rights to Wikipedia content. I suspect that in practice few contributors would wish to put the time and effort into persuing such a claim, given that the chances of receiving any material compensation would seem slim. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
What you can do is find and use better WP:RS sources which cover the same topic/section and replace the section text from said book herein with it; citing the new text and putting the new cited source book in the reference section accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Which 'cited source book' are you referring to? It has already been established that the material in the supposedly 'plagiarised' book was actually copied from Wikipedia. Nothing needs replacing as such (though more sources would be useful), and we sure as hell aren't going to put material taken from Wikipedia in breach of copyright in any reference section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
What I mean is that the Wikipedia uncited text (which apparently is also in the dubious "book in question") can use ce work and RS citations from a recognized new "cited source book"; given the section is not cited, lends itself to be easily challenged, and replaced along the lines I stated, if one so desires. I was about to write this note in my comment above but you wrote your comment which caused an edit conflict. Kierzek (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Kierzek - it was fairly clear to me what you meant. Use the existing work as a starting point and add some substantiation from other sources in the appropriate place, expanding when and where necessary. If I get a chance (unless somebody beats me to it), I can clean this section up (by which I mean - add sources and expand if needed). --Obenritter (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

'Some' historians? (!!!)[edit]

'An additional five million non-Jewish victims of Nazi mass murders are included by some historians...'. Just 'some' historians? Has this article been written by some kind of Holocaust denier?!--80.229.219.62 (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No, but thank you for asking. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Good to know. Not a Holocaust denier, but an American, therefore speaking quite some distance away from the Holocaust that actually began with severely disabled people.--95.149.79.137 (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Because we are a tertiary source, the geographical location of editors is completely irrelevant. The only prerequisite to editing en.wiki is the ability to communicate in English. VQuakr (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Anyway, this is the usual argument about whether "The Holocaust" refers to the murdered Jews or the murdered everyone else as well. --jpgordon::==( o ) 20:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)