Jump to content

Talk:The Holocaust: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 178: Line 178:
The Serbs were also targeted during this war - see article on Jasenovac concentration camp. [[Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:1E63:3A00:250C:406E:DE77:FB56|2607:FEA8:1E63:3A00:250C:406E:DE77:FB56]] ([[User talk:2607:FEA8:1E63:3A00:250C:406E:DE77:FB56|talk]]) 04:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
The Serbs were also targeted during this war - see article on Jasenovac concentration camp. [[Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:1E63:3A00:250C:406E:DE77:FB56|2607:FEA8:1E63:3A00:250C:406E:DE77:FB56]] ([[User talk:2607:FEA8:1E63:3A00:250C:406E:DE77:FB56|talk]]) 04:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
: [[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> In the section ''Invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece'' the persecution of the Serbs is reviewed. To the best of my knowledge, the sentence in question is not meant to be all-encompassing regarding the groups targeted. I don't see a compelling reason to explicitly add the Serbs to the requested sentence. —[[User:Sirdog|<span style="color:#058700">'''Sirdog'''</span> ]]([[User talk:Sirdog|talk]]) 03:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
: [[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EEp --> In the section ''Invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece'' the persecution of the Serbs is reviewed. To the best of my knowledge, the sentence in question is not meant to be all-encompassing regarding the groups targeted. I don't see a compelling reason to explicitly add the Serbs to the requested sentence. —[[User:Sirdog|<span style="color:#058700">'''Sirdog'''</span> ]]([[User talk:Sirdog|talk]]) 03:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
::Thanks for the response,
::I would argue that the purpose of the sentence is to generally address the systematic mass-killings of targeted non-Jewish populations. As Serbs were one of these major targets, there would be no reason to exclude them in the summary, especially when considering the number of civilian casualties fall within a similar range to another group that is named, the Roma. What would be the justification of naming the Roma and not the Serbs? What criteria determine who belongs in this sentence?
::If the purpose of the sentence is to provide a general overview, perhaps it would be more productive to name the "Roma and Slavs" instead of naming specific populations, since the Slavs are addressed as a group in Hitler's written and oral works when they are described as subhuman. Otherwise, if specific populations are being named, I can't see a logical reason to the exclude a major genocide such as that of the Serbs in this sentence.
::Furthermore, you've suggested that this sentence is not meant to be an exhaustive list. I agree with you - however, I would argue that in its current form, it reads as an exhaustive list to the reader. That's the reason that drove my initial suggestion. If it is not meant to be exhaustive, that should be explicitly expressed. Ex. "including Roma, Poles, Ukrainians, Soviet civilians and prisoners of war, '''among other targeted populations'''". I think this would be a fair addition as a minimum.
::Thank you [[Special:Contributions/2607:FEA8:1E63:3A00:ADAB:6D71:900A:A0EC|2607:FEA8:1E63:3A00:ADAB:6D71:900A:A0EC]] ([[User talk:2607:FEA8:1E63:3A00:ADAB:6D71:900A:A0EC|talk]]) 20:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:11, 21 May 2022

    Template:Vital article

    Former good articleThe Holocaust was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. 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.
    Article milestones
    DateProcessResult
    March 9, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
    January 19, 2006Good article nomineeListed
    July 5, 2006Good article reassessmentKept
    November 16, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
    May 3, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
    June 11, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
    October 3, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
    Current status: Delisted good article

    Just give a darn mention of the nonJewish victims on the splash page.

    I see now that this debate had come up before and that the article does at least get around eventually to a discussion of the Gentile victims of the Holocaust deeper in with specific sections on various groups.

    The problem is that the masses, googling "the Holocaust" for the first time, are going to read the first line and think "Ok: that's the basic story [and scope] of what happened," which is totally erroneous.

    With nothing like a total scholarly consensus (and frankly it wouldn't change the inaccuracy even if there *were* one), it seems to me either absurdly pedantic or clearly slanted to insist on the nonmention of the nonJewish victims in the first sentence which is, for good or ill, the only sentence many readers will ever read.

    Exactly the young and uneducated people who are already beginning to have the impression that only Jews were killed in the Holocaust.

    In another 75 years of heading the current direction we're going the nonJewish victims will be considered an "alternative fact."

    If most mainstream scholars had somehow come to the agreement that the Holocaust never in fact took place, is that what Wikipedia should reflect?

    Obviously not.

    It should reflect the truth.

    Ya know: the actual, rational, reasonable empirical truth of the basic factual reality of an event for which we have no other name in common parlance.

    Not just the most popular opinion. 97.115.170.34 (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps you should try reading as far as the fourth paragraph. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 15:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree, and for a more niche article that may be fine, but for something as broad as The Holocaust where especially a younger audience first learning about it might stumble upon this Wikipedia page, I think it would make more sense to describe it as the systematic murder of mainly European Jews along with several other minorities and ethnic groups, instead of solely naming Jews as the victim of the Holocaust. Prioritise but do not exclude. Redfordia (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    > Perhaps you should try reading as far as the fourth paragraph.

    as much as you might wish otherwise, not everyone is going to do that. the jewish death toll is in the first paragraph but, i had to go to a separate article to find the total number of deaths.

    i personally see no reason that should be the case. it seems like the most significant number would be how many people died, and that doesn't seem to be easily accessible anywhere. Binarycat64 (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @97.115.170.34 They're splitting a hair on the term "Holocaust". Mleonard85032 (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-Jewish victims

    As another user noted, it's simply disgraceful the lack of mention for gays, gypsies, blacks, Jehovah's Witnesses, Slavs, the disabled, etc. It's an insult to these groups to not treat them as equally worth mention in the first paragraph along with the Jewish death toll. Mleonard85032 (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you suggest?Moxy- 01:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We follow the sources - most sources do not consider the Holocaust to refer to the genocide of other than Jews. You'll find that information in the article itself in the footnotes. The issue has been extensively discussed in the talk page archives, you'll need to bring new sources that counteract the others. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that kinda splitting a hair? Mleonard85032 (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The WW2 museum website includes prisoners of war as "Holocaust victims". Mleonard85032 (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2022

    Suggesting to make an addition to a sentence.

    Original: The Holocaust is understood as being primarily the genocide of the Jews, but during the Holocaust era[8] (1933–1945), systematic mass-killings of other population groups occurred, including Roma, Poles, Ukrainians and Soviet civilians and prisoners of war.

    Suggestion: The Holocaust is understood as being primarily the genocide of the Jews, but during the Holocaust era[8] (1933–1945), systematic mass-killings of other population groups occurred, including Roma, Serbs, Poles, Ukrainians and Soviet civilians and prisoners of war.

    The Serbs were also targeted during this war - see article on Jasenovac concentration camp. 2607:FEA8:1E63:3A00:250C:406E:DE77:FB56 (talk) 04:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done: In the section Invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece the persecution of the Serbs is reviewed. To the best of my knowledge, the sentence in question is not meant to be all-encompassing regarding the groups targeted. I don't see a compelling reason to explicitly add the Serbs to the requested sentence. —Sirdog (talk) 03:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the response,
    I would argue that the purpose of the sentence is to generally address the systematic mass-killings of targeted non-Jewish populations. As Serbs were one of these major targets, there would be no reason to exclude them in the summary, especially when considering the number of civilian casualties fall within a similar range to another group that is named, the Roma. What would be the justification of naming the Roma and not the Serbs? What criteria determine who belongs in this sentence?
    If the purpose of the sentence is to provide a general overview, perhaps it would be more productive to name the "Roma and Slavs" instead of naming specific populations, since the Slavs are addressed as a group in Hitler's written and oral works when they are described as subhuman. Otherwise, if specific populations are being named, I can't see a logical reason to the exclude a major genocide such as that of the Serbs in this sentence.
    Furthermore, you've suggested that this sentence is not meant to be an exhaustive list. I agree with you - however, I would argue that in its current form, it reads as an exhaustive list to the reader. That's the reason that drove my initial suggestion. If it is not meant to be exhaustive, that should be explicitly expressed. Ex. "including Roma, Poles, Ukrainians, Soviet civilians and prisoners of war, among other targeted populations". I think this would be a fair addition as a minimum.
    Thank you 2607:FEA8:1E63:3A00:ADAB:6D71:900A:A0EC (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]