Talk:The Holocaust

Template:WP1.0 Template:FAOL

Article protected

I've had the article protected to stop the edit warring over the disputed content being added by User:HanzoHattori. Hanzo, I suggest that you stop trying to revert to the massive changes involved in that single diff, and to present any changes you would like to see made in the article. That diff is not acceptable. I advise going slowly and adding material in a manner that other editors can easily see and view your changes. Your edit summaries continue to be uninformative. This style of editing has been objected to several times and it must cease. There is no consensus for your changes, SlimVirgin and I have both objected to your changes. – Dreadstar † 19:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You? I discussed with you, you stopped objecting and asked for "next step" (no one else joined). You revert to the version which claims Jasenovac was an extermination camp (it wasn't), and Chełmno extermination camp is linked as Chelmno (click them!). And so on. It's just a badly made article. The only thing I thought was above average was the quotes (well done, unlike awkard ones in the Arkan and Iwo Jima articles I removed), and I was impressed by the section about the overall responsibility of Germany, not just the folks in SS and police (een if there's mentioned "government transport offices arranged the trains for deportation to the camps", but not the Deutsche Reichsbahn itself - needs a cleanup and interlinking, too). --HanzoHattori 19:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You need to re-read what I wrote, I did not 'stop objecting' and give consensus. Since no consensus was reached, I asked you what you thought the next step should be. I was hoping you would opt for my suggestion to make small edits, slowly implemented, with clear edit summaries; instead you chose to continue your edit war. I don't think reverting back to the version containing your massive and disputed changes is appropriate and I oppose it completely. I suggest you find another way, perhaps taking it up the chain. – Dreadstar † 19:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What is disputed? Okay, you guy may have all the homosexuals you want in the intro. Yay. I'd go and insert this NOW, but no, protected. So no yay. Anything else? --HanzoHattori 20:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You will need to propose any changes you want to make to the article. Merely re-citing the disputed diff or any other diffs is not appropriate. The article is too long and the diffs are too massive to easily review. I also think comments such as the above stretch WP:CIV, and make it more difficult to gain the cooperation of other editors. – Dreadstar † 20:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dreadstar, for slowing this thing down. This is the second time I had to wade my way through a huge number of small edits, done seconds apart. It is not conducive to a reflective response. --Joel Mc 20:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Estimates of Holocaust deaths

This starts out as a question for User:Stephan Schulz about a comment that he made on Talk:Holocaust denial but I am placing it here as being more appropriate to this Talk Page than to that one.

On Talk:Holocaust denial, User:Stephan Schulz commented that estimates of Holocaust deaths range from 5.1 million to "somewhat beyond 6 million". In my very cursory review of Google results, I've only seen estimates ranging from 5.1 million to 5.9 million. I'm curious what estimates there that are beyond 6 million.

And, yes, I realize that this a hugely inexact science. Nonetheless, I think it is worthwhile to understand what the differences are between estimates. So far, I have only seen two kinds of estimates: one that goes country by country based on a "estimated percentage killed" and another which provides total deaths in concentration camps.

I'm sure the people who have conducted these estimates have been very thorough and have methodologies which have been both defended and criticized. Any links to online resources in this regard would be much appreciated.

I would like to see a more in-depth treatment of these studies and their methodologies. (The underlying agenda being to lay out the numerical case against Holocaust deniers such as Igor the Otter.)

--Richard 17:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No one will ever know the correct number of victims. Eichmann himself, who supervised the Final Solution, and presumably received the best available reports, claimed the number was 6 million, and this appears to be the most commonly used 'ballpark' number.[1] Our job is to state the views of the most reputable scholarly sources on this topic, which we already do in the article. There is no point in having prolonged discussions about this issue – if someone has a better source, that can add additional insight into this topic, then go ahead and supply it. Otherwise, idle speculations and original research don't belong here. Crum375 18:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

...in particular, since there are many different definitions of "Jew", and for many victims it will be hard to retroactively decide if they fulfilled each or any of those. But for Richard: The Holocaust article has estimates up to 6.2 million. But, if I may: Don't lay out "the numerical case against Holocaust deniers". At best they will ignore you, at worst they will try to pick minor discrepancies and generate a lot of hot air from them. The evidence for the Holocaust is overwhelming. There is no need to elevate the deniers position by arguing on their turf. --Stephan Schulz 22:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources

The "Climax" section (perhaps an unfortunate choice of words as well--please think these things through) contains no citations sourcing its content even though it purports to provide a quotation (that is, in an actual "quotation box") of Himmler's which comes "closer than ever before to stating explicitly that he was intent on exterminating the Jews of Europe". It seems to me that the assertions made in the section are significant and need to be cited or else this constitutes OR. Further anything in quotation marks, especially anything that has been translated from a foreign language and so is not a strict quotation, warrants special attribution. The footnote numeration jumps from 138 to 141 on either end of this section, so I'm not sure if there was some kind of editing error here. I'd like to throw in a "citation needed" flag but, alas, the administrators in their wisdom have locked the article. Perhaps one of them, SlimVirgin for example, could flag the section on my behalf.

The article is locked, but in the meanwhile, here are some sources for Himmler's Posen speech:

• holocaust-history.org
• historyplace.com
• nizkor.org
• nationalsozialismus.de (German)
• Yad Vashem
• ess.uwe.ac.uk

Crum375 23:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

D-Day

There is a box with links to D-Day, a Normandy landing photo, and part of one section head refers to D-Day. This seems pretty far removed from the topic of The Holocaust. I tried to remove it, and was reverted. Would someone explain the relevance? Or better yet, can we form consensus to remove some or all of this material? Jd2718 20:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

D-day is the most important milestone of WWII in Europe, and the ground invasions led to the Nazis being defeated and the camps liberated. There is no logical reason to remove this that I can see. Crum375 03:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

D-Day is not part of the Holocaust. There are several milestones of WWII in Europe that were arguably more important. And D-day did not lead directly to the liberation of any extermination camps. In fact, the article does not make any of the three claims that you present here. Jd2718 03:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What milestone of WWII in Europe is more important? And the article does mention D-day in the D-day section. By removing it you are removing an important milestone and time reference that puts the Holocaust into perspective. Crum375 04:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

For the camps and ghettos? Stalingrad and the Soviet advance. Most important for the war? I don't think we want to touch this. And as far as the article mentioning D-day, I did not remove that single anecdote, but that's all that's there. What I have removed is: 1) the phrase D-day from a section heading where there is one story about one person who did something based on hearing about D-Day. I also removed a largish D-Day link template. I also removed one photo of the allied landing.

I beg to differ, but there is no other single clear cut milestone - the Soviet advance and Stanlingrad were not clearly defined events, that are considered the 'beginning of the end' of the war in Europe. D-day serves as a clear timeline demarcation, and therefore is important to include in the section heading, like the year or date, as it provides perspective to the unfolding of the war around the Holocaust. Crum375 04:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be the only such heading in the article. Might I suggest instead that the box at the opening of the Liberation section include a bit about D-Day (and a bit more about the Soviet advance - they took Majdanek before the western allies broke out of Normandy, and the timing of some of the 'smaller' (none were really small) acts of resistance seems to coincide with Nazi setbacks on the eastern front that they may have learned of). I also note that while there is a rough progression of the intensity of the killing in the article, there is no strict timeline, with some sections jumping back and forth. Jd2718 05:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, D-day is the most critical milestone in WWII. To leave it out removes an important timeline perspective of the war that's raging around the Holocaust. I see no reason not to leave it the way it was. Crum375 13:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is simply unsupported. In addition, there are three distinct pieces to the edit, none of which you've addressed. Jd2718 21:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Again, D-day is the most important milestone of WWII, and provides a critical reference point in the timeline of the Holocaust. It is equivalent, in US-centric perspective, to Pearl Harbor. We don't need to dedicate a section to it, but I just don't see why we need to suppress it. Crum375 21:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Crum, look at the section you have been reverting. Does D-Day make any sense to be mentioned specifically in that section? Now look at the following section, Liberation. I suggested that it would make some sense to mention Allied advances, including D-Day, there. Do you agree? In addition, look at the image you have been re-adding. How does this enrich the article? Now look at the set of links you have been re-adding. Click them. Do they go somewhere a reader of this article is likely to want to go? Jd2718 00:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see at all a problem to mention D-day in that section heading, as it indicates an important timeline point in the execution of the war that unfolded around the Holocaust. The image is emblematic of D-day, and represents the 'boots on the ground' of the western allies, which signaled the beginning of the end for the war and the Holocaust. The D-day links are only links - we don't amplify - a user who wants to know more about D-day and Normandy landings, that marked the most significant turning point of the war, can click and find out. I see no major issue in including it as it's fairly small. Crum375 01:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

That's June 44 for the landings and October 44 before they reached Germany. If you believe that D-Day ended The Holocaust, then source it. Then we'll look at that source. It is, at best, a major stretch. Jd2718 15:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying D-day 'ended the Holocaust'. What I said was: D-day was the most important milestone in the timeline of WWII, and it was the beginning of the end of the war, and therefore the Holocaust. As far as the dates, Bergen-Belsen was only liberated in April 1945. But the point is not that the allies rushed from Omaha Beach to Birkenau - it is simply that with boots on the ground (in the western front), it signaled the final act of both the war and the Holocaust. Suppressing this important event and timeline point makes no sense. Crum375 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Come now, Crum, D Day was not remotely "the most important milestone in the timeline of WWII". The German army was pulverised by the Soviets (Stalingrad? Kursk?). The main Death Camps were in Eastern Europe, not in the West. It wildly distorts history to put D Day in such a prominent position. Paul B 15:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying D-day directly caused the liberation of the camps; we are just using it as a timeline point, like an important date. And it is not mentioned that prominently - the section title in question is: "Escapes, D-Day, publication of news of the death camps (April–June 1944)", which refers to the fact the at least one famous escape sequence was affected by D-day. In the links box, we also include the eastern front advances. This is simply a marker of the western boots on the ground, which signaled the end to the war. We are not over-promoting it, but we should not suppress it either. Crum375 19:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Jd, can you say why you feel the Normandy landings were marginally relevant? Holocaust survivors would be unlikely to see them that way (and don't, in my experience). SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't prove a negative. But the death camps were closed as Soviet troops advanced. As I mentioned to Crum, Majdanek was taken while the Western allies hadn't broken out of Normandy. The Holocaust in Hungary was stopped, and hundreds of thousands spared, because of the invading Red Army. American troops had not yet entered Germany. The link to the Holocaust is indirect, and there are other events from the War which might be mentioned first. There could be a place for D-Day, but images and section heads? No. Jd2718 00:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I rather agree. And I'd venture that Germany's defeat at Stalingrad had rather more direct implications for the camps. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I came to the discussion page just because I was wondering why that photo was there. D-Day was undoubtedly an important day, and the photo is relevant on the Battle of Normandy page, but seems out of place on a page about the Jewish holocaust. Treating it as a timeline point makes no sense because there's no photographic timeline, and the photos that are in the article aren't in temporal order. 172.159.69.47 16:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus regarding D-Day material

SlimVirgin and Crum have been re-adding the D-Day material without consensus. Thoughtful comments are receiving "I like it" responses. Please, if anyone has reasons to keep the D-Day stuff, share it. Otherwise we need to keep it out. Jd2718 02:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's there to help orient people regarding the timeline, and how as the Allies were moving in, the Germans were still deporting people to Auschwitz. If you want to add material about the advances from the east, please do so, but there's no need to remove what's already there. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've sourced the connection between the two. I've also changed your section heading here to one more in line with WP:CIVIL. Do you have any further objections to the material? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

D-Day was not directly conected to the Holocaust, but did bring about it's final colapse with the liberation of the camps.--Freetown 04:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The Battle of Normandy article does not even MENTION the Holocaust (obviously), and so does the D-Day too (obviously). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Operation_Overlord (a purely military affair) is NOT in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Holocaust (click it to see what the Holocaust was about). Any link beyond the timeframe and "it too involved Nazis" is purely artifictial. This battle was part of the World War II. It happened because Germany invaded Poland and then a lot of other countries, and then the other countries decided to liberate the occupied countries and then invade Germany (and so they had to land in the west again, after being badly bogged-down in Italy), not because of the Holocaust (even after they knew everything about it).

Actually, if the Allied leaders (Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, and their governemnts) cared about the Jews at all, they would do anything politically or by a military means (like bombing), and they did exactly NOTHING, even after having all the proof they wanted. The camps were libetared only when the froontlines of the war passed through, coming not only from the west and from the east too. See also: International response to the Holocaust (no Normandy mention here, too) - to summarize. I'll quote: "While the Allies were at war with Nazi Germany, and were engaged in a massive military campaign of unprecedented scale against it, they did little if anything to either stop the ongoing slaughter of millions of Jews and other minorities, or to save and absorb refugees." The D-Day material in the Holocaust article is some kind of a feel-good fable. --HanzoHattori 08:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Scanning this discussion, (a month later) I find only Crum's essentially "I like it" argument and SV's tenuous "timeline" arguments in favor, and a wide consensus to delete the material. Jd2718 01:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty weak and out of place. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Archived

I archived a big chunk to Talk:The_Holocaust/Archive 16, feel free to move any still 'live' conversations back or add more of the above to it. I basically left the 'protection' conversation on down, and archived the most recent soapy, troll-y stuff..;0 Dreadstar † 07:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Number of dead at Auschwitz

This page cites 1.4 million dead, but if you click on the link to the Auschwitz page they cite 1.1 million dead in the comprehensive introduction. Now I am well aware that these numbers are individual historian's estimates, but I feel that in the interests of coherence (i.e. it's a bit messy to have different numbers cited in different articles in wikipedia), that there are two possible remedies: 1. use the same numbers in all articles (but which ones?) 2. present the numbers as a range, e.g. 1.1-1.4 million. This would again create the problem of which sources to range, but given that one is using a larger sample this would seem to give improved veracity. Additionally, this would impress upon readers that these numbers have been arrived at in different ways. As a provisional suggestion, I would think that the range should be from the low conservative estimates (which are often based on what can be ascertained through direct records), and the slightly larger estimates, but which are equally valid, that employ for example pre and post war population statistics and eyewitness accounts/admissions e.g. Eichmann's. If this seems sensible it would seem that it could be taken as a convention for numbers cited in Holocaust articles, although in some parts this is already the case. Comments? Tsop 07:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Presenting the numbers as a range seems like a good option to me, but it's not a matter I'm terribly knowledgeable about. I generally just watch this page for vandalism and racist POV pushing. ornis (t) 08:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

probable inaccuracy

towards the bottom (in ('Climax') the claim is made (unreferenced) that "At Auschwitz, up to 20,000 people were killed and incinerated every day". Is this true? 20,000 a day is 140,000 a week. That means in ten weeks you have 1.4 million -perhaps the total number over two years. This single claim is not required in the context and probably should just be deleted (unless someone can source it). Can any user make the change or what is the deal? Tsop 09:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This protection level of this article has been reduced to 'semi' so that editors may now make any necessary changes.- Gilliam 09:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the claim is inaccurate - surely it needs to be sourced. But "up to" does not mean "on average." Toward the end of the war I believe rates of murder went up drastically; there is no reason to think that the maximum number of people killed in a week is anywhere's close to the average. I think the problem in the sentence is "every day." No sentence that has this syntax "Up to ... every day" make sense. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I found the number unlikely based on the other figures quoted in the article. "According to Rudolf Höß, commandant of Auschwitz, bunker 1 held 800 people, and bunker 2 held 1,200." A few sentences on: "The gas was then pumped out, the bodies were removed (which would take up to four hours), gold fillings in their teeth were extracted with pliers by dentist prisoners, and women's hair was cut". So in twenty-four hours it might be possible to kill six loads of two thousand people, which is 12,000 people. It doesn't say how many gassings a day were performed, but it seems like an unlikely high number. Have deleted the sentence.

Tsop 02:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as capacity, you may wish to note that Yad Vashem says: "Four chambers were in use at Birkenau, each with the potential to kill 6,000 people daily." [2]. Crum375 03:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Racist definition of Holocaust

The definition of Holocaust should include all people, not just Jews. It is largely Jewish scholars that omit everyone else. It appears this is solely because the rest don't really matter to them. --Salom Khalitun 20:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The article does mention the diverse victims of the Holocaust. Political prisoners, Jehovah's Witnesses, and homosexuals were sent to concentration camps as punishment. Members of these three groups were not targeted, as were Jews and Gypsies, for systematic murder. Nevertheless, many died in the camps from starvation, disease, exhaustion, and brutal treatment.- Gilliam 20:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I do wonder if Mr. Khalitun read as far as the second paragraph of the article. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I see the second paragraph and the list of other peoples, yet the definition of Holocaust in this article refers to Jews, largely because Jewish writers are only concerned about the Jewish victims. That is as racist as the Nazi perpetrators of the Holocaust. If the massacre of Jews is called the Holocaust, what is the massacre of non-Jews called ? Is there really no name for the murder of so many people. --Salom Khalitun 01:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has provided any opposing reasoning. According to Wikipedia guidelines there is therefore consensus. Anyone who wants to restrict the Holocaust to only Jews, when so millions of others suffered the same fate, is being racist and heartless anyway. --Salom Khalitun 14:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The "last man standing theory" of discussion does not work. Consensus about what? If you read the article, we do not define Holocaust - in fact, I would claim that it is not the task of an encyclopedia to define anything. We describe how the term is used, and have two very reliable sources for the current lead sentence. We also immediately mention the non-Jewish victims in the next sentence. Your edit has a number of problem. It drops the references from the first sentence, it omits some other information, and it contains the (mis-)leading and unsourced phrase "Jewish scholars do not ..." when what they allegedly do is neither universal among Jewish scholars, nor restricted to Jewish scholars. --Stephan Schulz 15:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Garbage ! The article very clearly defines the Holocaust as being only "the term generally used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews during World War II". That is a racist definition. It should be "...up to 11 million people including Jews, Roma, homosexuals, Jehovah's winesses, ......" It doesn't matter if they merely "mention" others. They are wrongly not included in the definition. You can not have a "reliable source" for this definition. It's not physics or astronomy, it's purely opinion. I can get you references that include all victims. It wouldn't make any difference. The "last man standing theory" is defined in the guidelines as consensus. --Salom Khalitun 18:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Are you Jewish ? Is that why you are putting forward such poor reasoning yet clinging on to a racist definition.

• It is you who are a racist anti-Semite. This is clear in the ad homenim and slanderous remark, "It appears this is solely because the rest don't really matter to them." All major Jewish organizations make it plain that the Nazis killed many other people, and had genocidal policies toward the Roma. The word "Holocaust" is not a generic word referring to any slaughter. It historically refers to the Nazi's genocidal campaign against the Jews - that is how the word was first applied to genocide (prior to the nazi campaign against the Jews, the word holocaust did not refer to genocide and was used in other, often innoccuous, ways). Now, to claim that the Nazis hated Jews does not mean that the Nazi's hated only Jews; to claim that the Nazis conducted a genocidal campaign against Jews does not mean that the Nazis conducted a genocidal campaign against only Jews. You do not understand simple basic logic: to say that "X occured" is not the same thing as saying "Y did not occur." But as you are a racist you are probably incapable of logical thought. At this point I see no reason to continue responding to a blatant anti-semite. The discussion is over. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Apparently you have trouble with comprehending the English language. No, the article does not define the term. It describes it. This is something completely different. And of course we can have reliable sources about history, and of course history is not "just opinion". If you have reliable sources that show a more inclusive use of the word, by all means bring them on, and we can incorporate them. I don't know what my religion or ethnicity has to do with my reasoning. Anyways, if you are interested, information about one is easily available, and information about the other should be deducable from other comments I have made. --Stephan Schulz 18:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

More irrelevant and falsely abusive garbage ! Most of my friends are Jewish so forget trying to distract attention from the facts with the anti-semitic crap. Most jews do not include anyone but Jews in the definition of Holocaust, despite the millions that were murdered. They know about them, sure, but they don't include them in any definition of the Holocaust. The United Nations does : "There can be no reversing the unique tragedy of the Holocaust. It must be remembered, with shame and horror, for as long as human memory continues. Only by remembering can we pay fitting tribute to the victims. Millions of innocent Jews and members of other minorities were murdered in the most barbarous ways imaginable. We must never forget those men, women and children, or their agony." —— United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan, January 27, 2006." Wikipedia's definition and those that support it are racists. --Salom Khalitun 18:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Your "fiends" are Jewish? Good freudian slip there. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia itself includes the United Nations definition as including all victims - not just Jewish. As representitives of all governments that is far higher authority than some of the petty references provided. That reference has already been inserted. You can not have inconistency by one article defining it as Jewish only and another including all victims. Nobody with any sense, reason or compassion would want to exclude all the other groups that were massacred anyway. --Salom Khalitun 18:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Um, you can't use Wikipedia as a source. Even if your change gains consensus -- which it hasn't, as you're the only one promoting it -- we can't use [3] as a source in the article. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not ? --Salom Khalitun 19:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Because Wikipedia is an unreliable source! Seriously! Same thing my brother the professor tells his students -- if you want to use Wikipedia reliably, you have to go to the reliable sources that Wikipedia cites, since anyone whosoever can edit Wikipedia. So, for example, instead of quoting Wikipedia there, you'd need to cite Annan directly. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• The original source from the United Nations News Centre has been inserted. The United Nations consistently describe the Holocaust as including non-Jews : “The Holocaust was a unique and undeniable tragedy,” Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a video message played to a special memorial ceremony in the General Assembly Hall on the Holocaust in which 6 million Jews, 500,000 Roma and Sinti and other minorities, disabled and homosexuals were killed." --Salom Khalitun 20:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, this is not a scholary publication, but rather a excerpt from a remembrance speech. It does not deal with the problem of definition. It may, however, be used as one piece of evidence for Salom's POV. Assuming for the sake of the argument that we accept this speech as a WP:RS, it would still not justify Salom's edit. In that case, we have conflicting reliable sources, and WP:NPOV would require us to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and [to] do so in proportion to the prominence of each". In my opinion, the first step towards this would be a review of a representative sample of reliable sources to enable us to gauge the current state of the discussuion.--Stephan Schulz 20:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You can get hundreds of references for this in favour and hundreds of references against. It doesn't prove anything. The fact that mainly Jewish authors consider the Holocaust as Jewish only is already in the article. This already accounts for the the two definitions. Why anyone would want to exclude non-Jews anyway is pure and callous bigotry. --Salom Khalitun 20:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me try again. We do not decide which version we want or which we think would be more fair, or improve the world. We only report how the term is actually used. I'm still missing any evidence that "mainly Jewish authors consider the Holocaust as Jewish only". And to be clear: No-one (except for some fringe assholes) denies that the Nazis killed millions of Jews and millions of members of various minorities, including Roma, homosexuals, Jehovas witnesses, and others. The question is wether the term "Holocaust" applies all of the killing, or only to part of it. --Stephan Schulz 20:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The United Nations any many others include all victims. Most Jews and some others do not. There are different opinions. Including all victims and then pointing out that the Jewish definition does not include non-Jews accounts for both viewpoints. The problem here is that there are some Jews who are trying to impose only the largely Jewish viewpoint. --Salom Khalitun 20:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The complete lack of supporting sources is noted. --Stephan Schulz 20:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Salom. While the article does state other groups besides the Jews were killed, it breezes over the other half of the victims, and deals almost exclusively with the Jewish death toll. Indeed, one of the first people to respond to the original post said "it mentions them". The article shouldn't merely "mention" the deaths of one half of the victims and spend the rest of the time talking about the other half. R.westermeyer 20:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Murder | Executed

I see the word "murdered" all over this article. when a state kills someone, it is typically called an execution, not a murder. When a supposedly neutral article calls an execution a murder, it is condemning the killing. Condemnation has no place in wiki, so I think that all references to the word murder (unless it was one individual killing another) should be removed and replaced with a more neutral word. R.westermeyer 20:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources defining the Holocaust

Below are some reliable sources on the topic. Please feel free to add more. --Stephan Schulz 20:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Encyclopedia Britannica: "Holocaust: the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II."
• Merriam Webster: "the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II "
• Compact OED: "the mass murder of Jews under the German Nazi regime in World War II."
• Dictionary.com, based on Random House: "the systematic mass slaughter of European Jews in Nazi concentration camps during World War II" (they have a number of references to other sources, some including the phrase "Jews and other ...", some referring to Jews exclusively).
• Cambridge Dictionary of American English (added after Salom pointed the existence of this out): "The Holocaust was the systematic murder of many people, esp. Jews, by the Nazis during World War II."
• Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary: "Holocaust: the killing of millions of Jews and others by the Nazis before and during the Second World War"

I can provide hundreds or even thousands of articles that include all victims. Are we in a competition of who can provide the most references ? When do we start ? Who's going to keep score !!! Are you Jewish ? Is that why you want to ignore all the millions of other victims. --Salom Khalitun 21:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Even one of your own examples (the Merriam Webster dictionary) includes non-Jews. Judging from the knowledge of the author of the Britannica article, he was obviously Jewish. The Dictionary.com article you referred to also has definitions that include non-Jews. --Salom Khalitun 21:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Salom, there is valid question of definition here, and sources do vary in their definitions, but asking questions like "are you Jewish?" does not help. You do your cause no favours by making remarks to the effect that Jewish writers don't care about anyone else or claiming that an author of Britanicca is "obviously Jewish". Paul B 21:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• I suggest you read my contributions, Salom. I have not, so far, taken a position on the issue. I've pointed out that various of your versions were unsourced or even in conflict with existing sources (or even common sense). As you can see from my collection of sources, I have not looked for sources for one side, but tried to get a feeling how reliable souces see the issue. And I strongly suggest that you stop speculating about the religion and/or ethnicity of people, either Wikipedians or others. There is no world Jewish conspiracy at work here. --Stephan Schulz 21:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You selectively included the Jews only Oxford definition, and avoided using the Cambridge definition that includes non-Jewish victims. Your flawed reasoning is supporting the primarily Jewish position. I will assume that you are Jewish but that you don't want to be shown to biased. I have yet to see any opposing reasoning or evidence at all. Totting up how many references support one view or the other is pointless. The Jewish only definition defies humanity, common sense, and the facts. --Salom Khalitun 21:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is "you"? Paul B 21:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case, "you" is probably me. I included the OED because it is one of the best-known and authorative dictionaries around. The Cambridge one is not associated with the University of Cambridge, but rather with Cambridge near Boston, and I was not aware of its existence up to now. Got the wrong impresson there.Stephan Schulz 14:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Anyways, I've added it. I'm also putting a note on Salom's page that I will initiate an WP:RFC if he does not refrain from pointlessly labelling everybody who disagrees with him as Jewish. An RFC needs to show previosu attempts by two editors to resolve the issue, so endorsements are welcome.--Stephan Schulz 21:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with most of those sources is that they spend most of the time discussing only the Jewish victims. I feel that for a truly unbiased and neutral article, the other half of the victims, even though they are not all from one ethnic group/race/etc. still need to be discussed in an equal amount, because if they are breezed over then that is not neutral. R.westermeyer 21:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The article should reflect what reliable sources say. If most let the word stand for the attempted extermination of Jews by Nazi Germany, but a few extend the definition to mass executions of other civilians, let the article reflect that difference, in roughly the same proportion. Does that make sense? That way our sources, rather than our individual opinions, create the balance in the article. Jd2718 21:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel that, while most people probably equate the Holocaust with the killing of the six million Jews, wikipedia still has a responsibility to tell people of those who were killed besides the Jews. I understand your reasoning, but should Wikipedia delete the article on quantum field theory because most people don't even know that such a thing exists? My point is that the reason most people wrongly believe that the Nazis only killed Jews is because of the lack of information on the other 5 million people killed. Nobody really makes too much mention of those other 5 million, and there for most people simply think that the Holocaust was "Jew-specific". Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, has a responsibility to tell people of those other five million. In short, the reason most people equate the Holocaust with Jews is because nobody has told them otherwise. R.westermeyer 22:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read the article, or at least the contents box. It tells about everyone who was killed. There are entire paragraphs devoted to Roma, homosexuals, and Jehovah's Witnesses. There is more about Jews than anyone else. And this balance, with shorter references to other groups, fairly accurately reflects the balance in our sources. Jd2718 00:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Huge numbers of people were killed by the Nazis, of course, but the question here is which of those killings should be included under the label 'holocaust'. No-one denies that other killings occurred - appalling massacres in Poland and Russia for example - but the term holocaust is usually restricted to the systematic killing of civilians whose only offense was their racial/ethnic identity, not their opposition to German war aims. The people who died in the Warsaw uprising, or at Lidice, for example, were killed to intimidate and terrify any potential opposition to German war aims, not simply because they were who they were. The difficulty is in usefully delimiting the term 'holocaust'. The word itself had simply come to mean 'oblitrative massacre' at the time that it was adopted. Many historians use it to refer to Jewish deaths specifically, sometimes self-consciously, sometimes just because Jews were undoubtedly the main targets for obliteration. Others are more inclusive, but there are big problems with inclusiveness, since you get to create a "slippery slope" in which any group who were targeted in any way by Nazis can claim to be holocaust victims. In many cases the Nazis never had any plan to kill all members of these groups simply for being who they were. They merely legislated against certain actions and practices (e.g. homosexuality or pacifism) and then imprisoned people who refused to abide by their laws - just as any nation does. The difference was that the Nazis were much more brutal than most other nations. In the war, imprisonment usually meant being sent sent to a concentration camp, and that often meant that people imprisoned died. But that's very different from the attitude to Jews. They didn't imprison and then murder Jews to intimidate opposition, or to discourage practices that they had made illegal. They killed them for being Jewish. That is the distinctive feature. Pacifists and homosexuals could have changed their behaviour. Of course you can say that it was unfair to expect them to do so. True enough. Those who refused to do so were sticking to their principles. But at least they had the choice. Jews were not even allowed that. Even the Spanish Inquisition allowed them to convert. The Nazis allowed no option at all. If you were of Jewish descent, you were, by definition a "criminal" Paul B 00:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

To be valid for this article, the claim that "the term holocaust is usually restricted to the systematic killing of civilians whose only offense was their racial/ethnic identity" needs to be backed up by sources which state this. Otherwise, it's original research. But if some sources restrict the term holocaust this way, but others have a wider view of the term & include victims who were Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, mentally ill, etc. under the term, then WP:NPOV demands that the view represented by those sources also be represented in this article. From the dictionary definitions posted above, it appears that a significant number of sources include other civilian victims besides those targeted for their ethnicity under the definition of holocaust. --Yksin 17:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is in fact no rule against making such general points on talk pages. However the problem in this case is that there is no consistency in usage among historians, and many books do not explain or justify their usage. Often the word is simply used as a synonym for Final Solution, or for ethnically based murders without explicitly saying so. Some of the very earliest usages are very generalised comments, following from the earlier unspecific meaning of "overwhelming disaster", or from the earlier use of the word to refer to the Armenian genocide. This is very well documented, but it's often about historians' de facto usage rather than any explicit assertion that "The Holocaust = YXYZ, but not ABC". Hence the repeated vague statements about "Jews and others" in so many definitions. None of the dictionary definitions state which 'others' should be included. If they did, we would have a clearer sense of a specific debate locatable in specific sources. The expansion of 'lists' of victim groups partly arises from lobbying by various groups wishing to get their victimhood recognised and is therefore mostly associated with policy statements from beaurocratic sources rather than historians. The problem for this article is the tendency for some editors to add a particular group to the list, and for others to remove it. Paul B 09:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is why wikipedia is not a dictionary and dictionaries are of very limited use for Wikipedia. it is not a question of a dictionary definition, it is a question of usage. The article should explain who uses the word and in what way. It should document changing uses of the word. My bet is you will find that in the late 1940s/early 1950s virtually everyon used "the Holocaust" to refer to the genocidal campaign against the Jews. My guess is that by the 1970s different groups were using "The Holocuast" in other ways. We should distinguish between scholars, states, and victim's agents or advocates. I think our best sources are various Holocaust Museums, and the scholarly literature on the Holocaust. There is a huge field of Holocaust studies. It doesn't matter what we think the word means or should mean, we should be looking at how scholars and others use the word. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said. —Parhamr 16:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a few. There is the widespread and justified assumption that the Holocaust includes all victims, and not selectively those that are Jewish. Why shouldn't it ! If the definition is going to be in proportion to the number of references provided, I will provide more references that properly include all victims. We can then forget altogether the baised and bigoted Jewish definition that callously disregards the deaths of millions of non-Jews. --Salom Khalitun 22:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In Israal, Jews have an entire country as a mouthpiece for them, as well as rich lobby groups in countries such as the U.S.A.. Gypsies and Jehovah's Witnesses don't. The Israeli government and Jewish groups very evidently give prominence to "their own" rather than groups such as homosexuals (who are considered as an abomination in Judaism), and Jehovah's witnesses, which is considered an alien religion by them. They know of others that were affected, but they certainly don't fuss over them, and consequently even define it as only a Jewish event. --Salom Khalitun 22:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Gypsies are a valid comparison, but Jehovah's Witnesses were not imprisoned or killed because of their identity, but because they refused to join the armed forces. It was for an act, nor for an identity. For the same reason, they also suffered from attacks in Allied countries (notably the US, Canada and Australia). Paul B 00:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I was referring above to the Cambridge English Dictionary, which properly includes all the victims. What has been done some paragraphs previously is to selectively use the "American English" Dictionary instead. Another case of the Jewish supporters going around looking for the evidence that supports them and ignoring the evidence that doesn't. There's obvious bias and motivation in people that do that. They have no interest in the facts. --Salom Khalitun 23:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can find out, there is no such thing as the "Cambridge English Dictionary". At the very least, it is not available online at the Cambridge University Press dictionary site. If you have another source in mind, by all means add it. --Stephan Schulz 23:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That dictionary is English, as in the language, instead of the American English dictionary you provided. Adding up how many references or which people claim one or the other is ludicrous. Holocaust is simply defined differently. Some people - very wrongly or ignorantly - only include Jews. The millions of others simply don't matter to them ! Why should they care about a bunch of Gypos, faggots and cripples anyway. --Salom Khalitun 23:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Failure to provide a concrete source noted once more. --Stephan Schulz 00:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

More crap from Schulz once more. United Nations policy is more than concrete. So is Cambridge Dictionaries http://dictionary.cambridge.org/that I have already referred to. --Salom Khalitun 12:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ummm...now you are getting incoherent. That is the very site I used above. There are two normal dictionaries there: The Advanced Learners and the American English. What is not there (or maybe I just cannot find it) is a "Cambridge English Dictionary". I've added the second definition, although I don't see how it advances your point. --Stephan Schulz 14:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that the Jewish contingent here have no regard for historical facts. They solely want to perpetuate their callous and bigoted disregard for anyone that isn't Jewish. That's why their reasoning is such utter crap. --Salom Khalitun 12:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Gypsies were sent to concentration camps solely for being Gypsies. Auschwitz had a Gypsy camp solely for them. But Gypsies don't matter to a lot of Jews. They only care about their own. That's why you get Jewish and Jewish influenced authors stating obviously false historical facts by including only Jews. They simply don't care about the rest. --Salom Khalitun 12:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the current score on references. Is it 6-2, 4-1, 8-0 ? Does it matter ? No ! The blunt fact is that the Jewish contingent don't care about the other victims. It's only a Jewish Holocaust to them. Anyone that supports them is devoid of humanity and morality. --Salom Khalitun 14:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think these are better references than the one's Stephan Schultz provided, with all due respect:

• Bartov, Omer. "Antisemitism, the Holocaust, and Reinterpretations of National Socialism." In The Holocaust and History: The Known, the Unknown, the Disputed, and the Reexamined, edited by Michael Berenbaum and Abraham J. Peck, 79-80. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998.
• Garber, Zev, and Bruce Zukerman. "Why Do We Call the Holocaust 'The Holocaust.'" Modern Judaism 9, no. 2 (1989): 197-211.
• Tal, Uriel. "Excursus on Hermeneutical Aspects of the Term Sho'ah." Appendix to his article, "On the Study of the Holocaust and Genocide." Yad Vashem Studies 13 (1979): 7-52.
• Tal, Uriel. "Holocaust." In Encyclopedia of the Holocaust, 681. New York: Macmillan, 1990, p.1799.
• Young, James. "Names of the Holocaust: Meaning and Consequences." Chap. 5 in Writing and Rewriting the Holocaust: Narrative and the Consequences of Interpretation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988.

Slrubenstein | Talk 15:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Jewish or Jewish influenced authors of books we've never heard of ! Of course Jewish authors will exclude all non-Jews. They don't care about anyone else. Their racial bigotry is as bad as that of the Nazi perpetrators. --Salom Khalitun 15:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

I just filed on against User:Salom Khalitun here. Would other people comment? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll comment. You have no rational arguements with which to continue with a bigoted definition of Holocaust, so you initiate personal attacks. You've already initiated personal abuse against me, which will be pointed out in response. Obviously one rule for you and another rule for others ! --Salom Khalitun 15:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Rubenstein has already been personally very abusive and offensive. He has no shame. :*you....are a racist anti-Semite. But as you are a racist you are probably incapable of logical thought. At this point I see no reason to continue responding to a blatant anti-semite. The discussion is over. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of my friends are Jewish !!! --Salom Khalitun 15:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, it is all over now. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be part of this. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust definitions

There is an extremely thorough and referenced assessment of the definition of the word Holocaust that takes takes account of hundreds of references in different countries and different eras : http://www.berkeleyinternet.com/holocaust/

Its findings do not concur with the definition of "Holocaust" in the Wikipedia article. It confirms that there are a vast range of definitions of Holocaust depending on when and where they were given and by whom.

It points out, as does the Wikipedia article, that Jewish sources usually define the Holocaust as being only Jewish. However, it is very apparent from the assessment that the Jewish only definitions are not even in the majority.

It is very well established historical fact that the Holocaust involved groups of people that were not Jewish. The rest of the Wikipedia article, apart from the definition concurs with this. So there is an inconsistency between the opening definition and the rest of the article.

If the Holocaust only concerned "six million European Jews" as the opening definition claims, then the rest of the text should be consistent with this and should exclude other minorities. More properly, as there were undoubtedly millions of non-Jewish victims, the definition should be altered to account for them.

This inconsistency could be corrected by inserting "and other minorities" after "...six million European Jews..." in the first paragraph. The second paragraph already details who these other minorities were.

The fact detailed in paragraph 2 that most Jewish authors, and some non-Jewish authors do not include non-Jews in their definition is still relevant, as it will help the reader to understand the very differing definitions. --Prof Fiferman 14:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know this article very well. It was extensively discussed (see Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 15 sections 15 and 16) along with other sources. But depite the overwhelming evidence it contains all attempts to refer to it were reverted. I must admit the experience shocked me. However, the evidence is covered in Names of the Holocaust. Nevertheless, it is important not to get two separate issues confused. The fact that the word 'holocaust' was widely used for disasters, conflagrations and mass killings before WW2 and after is quite distinct from two other questions viz:

• 1. which groups should be referred to when we speak of The Holocaust in the specific context of WW2?

• 2. when is the word 'holocaust' is being used to make a specific comparision between Nazi mass murder and any other real or alleged mass murder?

However the fact that the term "Holocaust" was most notably applied repeatedly to the Armenian genocide in the 1920s is indisputible. Paul B 14:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Fiferman has been blocked - please learn to recognize Khalitun's sock-puppets ... and ignore them. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of "Khaliton", who I have never come across before. By what magical means is one supposed to learn to recognise his sockpuppets on the basis of a single posting? Paul B 10:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You mean User:Salom Khalitun. Still, same applies. Paul B 10:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If someone writes in the same style to make exactly the same point, and you discover that the user only registered when Salom Khalitun was blocked, then you may not have enough evidence to accuse him/her of being a sock-puppet but I do think you have enough reasonable cause to ignore him. Of course it is entirely up to you. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous edit was not me or anything to do with me. The anonymous editor is entirely inconsistent with what I had written. It is obvious from what I had written that I fully believe that the Holocaust took place. It is sheer stupidity and delusion to believe otherwise. Prof Fiferman was not me either. I asked him to respond as he knows more about the subject than I do. You are using personal abuse and bogus claims of sockpuppetry to try to shut up anything that opposes what you want to believe. The prevalent view of the definition of Holocaust is clearly that it is not Jewish only. The detailed review added by Prof Fiferman (who is Jewish !) conclusively prooves that. If you had any self respect you'd respond to the evidence provided. You obviously can't, and so instead want to impose your Jewish only view of the Holocaust, when millions that were not Jewish were affected. It is obvious that your concerns are only with the Jewish victims. You have a callous disregard for the other victims. You are as bad as the Holocaust deniers but at the opposite extreme. Paul B is approaching this very objectively. However, I'm not surprised at all that Paul B has seen his previous attempts at providing cogent evidence constantly reverted. There are unfortunately many people like you on Wikipedia that have little regard for the facts and that instead use any means possible to try to impose false versions of events to suit their own prejudices. --Salom Khalitun 2 14:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-neutral article

This article doesn't give proper weight to alternative views. Many scholars are skeptical of the "6 million" figure, some question whether the "Holocaust" actually occurred at all. This article is regurgitating what the liberal media have been shoving down our throats for decades now: that what is written now is the "mainstream" scientific point of view. Anyone who questions it is immediately labeled an "anti-semite" and cast aside, and that's what seems to be happening in this article. There is nothing more than a link to "Holocaust denial" at the end of the page. There is complete disregard for the countless scholarly studies that challenge the mainstream orthodoxy. As it is, this is the most biased article on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.191.59.201 (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. It is not POV to give undue weight to holocaust deniers, all of whom are antisemites. The only reason for holocaust denial is to justify antisemitism in some way, shape or form. There is nothing scholarly about the practice.--Sefringle^Talk 05:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

DNFTT. --Stephan Schulz 05:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Folks, don't you know that these statements by anonymous users are just Khaliton trying to get around his being blocked? My advice is this: if an anonymous user posts a comment that amounts to Salom Khalitun's point, just ignore it. He has been blocked and if you respond to him you are in effect undoing the block. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous edit was not me or anything to do with me. The anonymous editor is entirely inconsistent with what I had written. It is obvious from what I had written that I fully believe that the Holocaust took place. It is sheer stupidity and delusion to believe otherwise. Prof Fiferman was not me either. I asked him to respond as he knows more about the subject than I do. You are using personal abuse and bogus claims of sockpuppetry to try to shut up anything that opposes what you want to believe. The prevalent view of the definition of Holocaust is clearly that it is not Jewish only. The detailed review added by Prof Fiferman (who is Jewish !) conclusively prooves that. If you had any self respect you'd respond to the evidence provided. You obviously can't, and so instead want to impose your Jewish only view of the Holocaust, when millions that were not Jewish were affected. It is obvious that your concerns are only with the Jewish victims. You have a callous disregard for the other victims. You are as bad as the Holocaust deniers but at the opposite extreme. Paul B is approaching this very objectively. However, I'm not surprised at all that Paul B has seen his previous attempts at providing cogent evidence constantly reverted. There are unfortunately many people like you on Wikipedia that have little regard for the facts and that instead use any means possible to try to impose false versions of events to suit their own prejudices. --Salom Khalitun 2 14:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)