Talk:The Holocaust

‎Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 January 2021

In this section, please add the link for Children in the Holocaust next to "Jewish population by country" in the "See also" at the beginning. Like this:

See also: Jewish population by country and Children in the Holocaust

In this section, please add "History of the Jews during World War II" to the list of "Main articles", like this:

Main articles: Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, Jewish resistance in German-occupied Europe, Jewish Combat Organization, Miła 18, Jewish Military Union, Fareynikte Partizaner Organizatsye, and History of the Jews during World War II

Finally, in this section, please add a link to Holocaust survivors inside text where it says "Jewish survivors", like this:

....The government of Israel requested $1.5 billion from the Federal Republic of Germany in March 1951 to finance the rehabilitation of 500,000 Jewish survivors...

Thanks--Watchlonly (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

• Done. François Robere (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:SEAOFBLUE

What is the problem with this edit? It doesn't change the meaning of sentence in any way, and it avoids a WP:SEAOFBLUE of different links.--Watchlonly (talk) 20:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for opening a discussion about the first sentence. The difference is this:

Current:

The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah, was the World War II genocide of the European Jews.

Proposed:

The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah, was the genocide of European Jews during World War II.

Both have lots of blue links, so that isn't a reason to change it; too much blue is a problem in general with leads. Apart from that, the current version is tighter, snappier, and it ends with (and therefore emphasizes) the European Jews. It also says "the" Jews, not Jews. In addition, the proposed version slightly gives the impression that there were other genocides of Jews. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how is that relevant, but of course there were other genocides of Jews. Take a look at Genocides in history: Bar Kokhba revolt, Khmelnytsky Uprising, Pogroms during the Russian civil war.--Watchlonly (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Watchlonly, I support your proposed change here. The sea of blue created by placing the links World War II and genocide directly next to each other in the lead has confused me on multiple occasions, and I think "genocide... during World War II" is easier to understand than "World War II genocide" and flows better. SlimVirgin, the proposed wording could be changed to "the genocide of the European Jews," right? I agree with you that it's an important distinction to make. warmly, ezlev. talk 22:04, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

What's the difference between simply "European Jews" and "the European Jews"? It doesn't change the meaning and avoids repeating the word "the" in the same sentence several times.--Watchlonly (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Ezlev, the current version is better writing. It's tighter, smoother, the cadence works, and the resolution is appropriate for the topic. The differences may seem slight but read it out loud. Imagine it's the first sentence of an academic lecture you're delivering about the Holocaust. Current version first, followed by the proposed:

The Holocaust was the World War II genocide of the European Jews.

The Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews during World War II.

SarahSV ^(talk) 22:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I literally can't see the difference. It means exactly the same, except that the first version makes a "sea of blue" with several different links.--Watchlonly (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, it could just be a dialect difference between you and me, but I still think the proposed version is smoother and more accurate. The Holocaust wasn't a "World War II genocide," it was a genocide which occurred during World War II - I would be in favor of the wording change for that reason even if WatchIonly wasn't right about the MOS:SEAOFBLUE guideline, which they are. It states that placing two wikilinks directly next to each other should be avoided, a goal which the proposed change accomplishes. With all that being said, if we can't reach consensus I think an RfC might be in order here. warmly, ezlev. talk 00:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

"The Holocaust wasn't a 'World War II genocide'". Yes, it was. Genocide is the attempt to wipe out an ethnicity. It was arguably the only genocide of the war (possibly the Roma too, although Nazi attitudes to the Roma differed). And it was directly tied to the causes of the war, the reason for the war in the first place. It wasn't simply "a genocide" that took place during the war. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I agree with most of what you're saying there, but I think my point stands. After thinking about it more, I think this is mostly a grammar and style disagreement - I'm not sure of the proper terminology to describe it, but I personally prefer to place a definitional descriptor (like "genocide" in this case) before a contextual descriptor (like "World War II"). One example that comes to mind, although it might not be exactly comparable, is that I would describe the United States presidential debates as "debates (definitional) during a US election (contextual)" rather than "US election debates," although I think both are technically correct. Since my argument doesn't go beyond personal preference combined with a non-binding style guideline, though, I'm willing to drop it. Thanks for all the great work you do on Wikipedia. warmly, ezlev. talk 02:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Watchlonly: It's poor style to reinstate the change when the participants of the discussion haven't reached a consensus yet. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• FWIW I prefer the current: The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah, was the World War II genocide of the European Jews...Modernist (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the current version is ambiguous. It is not clear whether 'World War II' is intended to communicate the time period, a relevant socio-political context or a causal link. Once it has been decided what the intended communication is, a better unambiguous phrasing can follow. Jontel (talk) 14:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is that a problem? It communicates all three of those things, in just that order. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

We should ask ourselves, what is the purpose of the adjective? Presumably, it should be to define the subject of the article by distinguishing between this genocide of European Jews and other ones e.g. pogroms in Russia. Much of the detail to enable a definition is in the succeeding sentence, so there is unnecessary repetition (WWII/ occupied, six million/ occupied, genocide/ murder, genocide/ systematic, Jews/ Jewish mentioned three times, Europe mentioned three times). Combining the two sentences would enable one to say, more succinctly e.g.: 'The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah, was a genocide between 1941 and 1945 by Nazi Germany and its collaborators, resulting in the deaths of some six million, or two in three, European Jews. Jontel (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I much prefer the proposed The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah, was the genocide of European Jews during World War II. It puts emphasis on the genocide and the victims (which is what this article is about), not the war. The genocide was an event that took place during WWII. It was not a WWII event, such as the Pacific Theatre or the Invasion of Poland. I feel like mentioning the war before even defining what the Holocaust is in the first sentence results in an enormous amount of undue weight, and can potentially be seen as trivializing both events. The proposal also breaks up the sea of blue, which is small but nice for readability. Jonmaxras (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I have a slight preference for watchlonly's version. It isn't the most compressed sentence, but it feels simpler (and I like that). I also wouldn't include that "the" before European Jews. - Daveout(talk) 20:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with @Daveout:, removing "the" would be an improvement. Jonmaxras (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

THERE WAS PREVIOUS CONCENSUS ON A PREVIOUS TALK PAGE. WHY HAS THIS PAGE NOW BEEN DELETED? Durdyfiv1 (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Try the talk page archive: here. - Daveout(talk) 23:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Jonmaxras. I do not know which literature course you took, but "WWII genocide" does NOT place any less emphasis on the genocide aspect of the Holocaust. Read the sentence to yourself and you'll see that the way the sentence flows means that the emphasis is naturally placed on "genocide" and not on "WWII". The only one trivialising anything is yourself, and you appear confused – the Holocaust was very much a WWII event, or an event which links to WWII. Your proposed sentence structure lends one to infer that this genocide should be categorised the same as any other genocides. It should not. There has been, and never will be, any other genocide quite like the Holocaust. This was THE WWII genocide of the European Jews. (I'd even so far so as to use a capital G in "genocide", but I understand if others find that petty. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Durdyfiv1: And I do not know who raised you but I'm sure they would have hoped you'd be kinder to people than you've been in this thread. If you want to try responding again without insulting my intention or intelligence, then go ahead. Also, the word 'genocide' is not a proper noun, which is why it's not capitalized. Jonmaxras (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jonmaxras, no need to respond again. I think I made my point clear and you seem unable to challenge it. Forgive me for my tone but this discussion was had last year and we came to a concensus based on my comments. I do not know why WatchIonly restarted this discussion without first checking the archived talk-pages. Don't worry, I attacked him too. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Durdyfiv1: Attacking editors in not the purpose of Wikipedia. If you think your behavior is remotely in the realm of acceptable then you are clearly not here to help build an encyclopedia. Admitting that you attacked another user is not the defense you think it is. Regarding this discussion's content, I would direct you to Ezlev's and Jontel's comments above; they describe very well how the sentence structure could be improved in technical terms and there's no point in my repeating their words. My objection is that the opening sentence, as it stands, is clunky and awkwardly worded. Your argument consists of baselessly accusing POV pushing. Jonmaxras (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Watchlonly (Personal attack removed) in claiming that there have been other genocides perpetrated against Jews. Please can he explain to the other readers why none of the other events have thus far been labelled a genocide? And by claiming "the" shouldn't be used, one could argue that he oddly believes those who perished in the Holocaust shouldn't be considered united in their collective suffering. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jonmaxras. It is obvious that your claim that my argument "consists of baseless POV pushing" is only because I successfully invalidated your comments. My admitting to attacking another user was not my "defence", as one was not needed. There is nothing "clunky" about this sentence structure, and it is not "awkwardly worded" - it in fact reads more smoothly. See SlimVirgin's comments. Oh look, you're pushing a baseless POV. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Durdyfiv1, please note that consensus can change; the consensus which was reached previously, while something editors should be aware of, does not prohibit discussions like this one or the potential establishment of a new consensus. Consequently, your argument that "this discussion was had last year and we came to a concensus based on my comments" is not grounds to stop or disrupt this discussion, and does not justify disruptive behavior. You've now been warned multiple times, so please proceed with caution.

I think we should move from discussion into a more formal RfC, as there are still at least two proposed versions and no clear consensus. I'm not very experienced with setting up RfCs - SlimVirgin, Jontel, or anyone else reading this, would you mind putting one together with the versions and rationales from this discussion?

-- warmly, ezlev. talk 20:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Handicapped

Can we change handicapped to disabled? Disabled people, myself included, find it offensive Gracey72 (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. warmly, ezlev. talk 21:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Found an US Army intelligence report from 1945 on Dachau liberation

Cover of PDF: US Army intelligence report from 1945 on liberated KZ Dachau

I recently found the adjacent 72-page PDF in completely uncategorized and quite poor condition (no description at all) while browsing on Commons. It was uploaded last year by a bot from the web, there it arrived somehow from a US Holocaust archive. I put some work into the file description page. Quote:

This is a 72 page internal intelligence report written by members of different (military) intelligence branches and agencies, lead by the G-2 section (cf. bottom of fourth page of pdf) of the 7th US Army which liberated the Dachau concentration camp near Munich, Germany, during the last days of World War II in Europe. It is a detailed account on nearly all aspects of the concentration camp Dachau and was written with assistance by former inmates, namely, e.g., members of the "International Prisoners' Committee", the names of which are listed on p. 67.

I would suspect that this document was used in some form in the Nuremberg Trials or others. It is probably one of the few investigation reports that was created by US intelligence professionals (four different US intelligence departments) very soon after a major KZ was liberated. I just wanted to make this more public than it is on Commons, in case that this is (as I assume) of some significance for the WP or for the research in general. Regards, Pittigrilli (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Long-term use of the totally bogus 11 million figure is baffling

It is well established that this is an arbitrary figure invented by Simon Wiesenthal for political reasons. He wanted the Holocaust to be as big as possible to gentiles while still being clearly a Jewish issue, hence the six plus five. It became influential and some people later backfilled it by arbitrarily slicing up the Soviet atrocity dead until it fits the right size to make the numbers work, which Wikipedia appears to take seriously. There is no non-arbitrary way to get to 11 million. It is either much less (on the order of 1 million or fewer gentiles plus six million Jews) or much more (counting *all* East European victims of German massacres as Holocaust victims, which would defeat Wiesenthal's propaganda purpose entirely because then the Holocaust stops being a principally Jewish issue altogether.)

https://www.timesofisrael.com/remember-the-11-million-why-an-inflated-victims-tally-irks-holocaust-historians/

https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/217/simon-wiesenthal-and-the-ethics-of-history/

Completely baffling to me that this howler has persisted here for so long. Let's correct the figure by using sources that don't arbitrarily slice some Soviets in and some out of "The Holocaust" to get to a total number that was ultimately just made up in the first place. 70.24.21.65 (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)