Talk:The Holocaust

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)

Highly questionable 11 million figure

I thought it was fairly 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. In reality 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, pushing it well above 11 million and making The Holocaust a mostly non-Jewish affiar [!])

Please see Deborah Lipstadt below for confirmation:

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/

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)

To amplify.

• The figure of 11 million killed by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during the "Holocaust era" (1933–1945) consists roughly of 5.7 million Soviet civilians; nearly 3 million Soviet POWs; around 1.8 million non-Jewish Poles; 312,000 Serb civilians; up to 25,000 disabled; up to 220,000 Roma; around 1,900 Jehovah's Witnesses; at least 70,000 criminals and asocials; hundreds of gay men; and an unknown number of political opponents.8*

If you actually check the source it says something completely different. The Holocaust is defined in the very first sentence as the murder of six million Jews. There *is* a breakdown of "Holocaust era" victims offered, but it differs sharply from what is given by Wikipedia citing it. The "Holocaust era" total, as I suggested above, is massively larger, on the order of sixteen or twenty million, not eleven. Once again: There is no intellectually respectable way to get to 11. All you can do is cherry-pick the Soviet losses somehow to make the numbers right, but that's not scholarship. 70.24.21.65 (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

You make valid points, but before I address them I would appreciate it if you could refine your message to be a bit less crude. François Robere (talk) 12:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I have done so. I was salty because Wikipedia is repeating something on the level of a chain email, which is very uncharacteristic on such an important and highly trafficked article. I apologize. 70.24.21.65 (talk) 21:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I understand, and I agree that our sourcing standards aren't always up to par.

The Times of Israel story is interesting, but not usable in its own right (see WP:APL#Article sourcing expectations). The USHMM is usable, and you're right there are some discrepancies between it and Wiki. The USHMM also makes clear two of the problems in making any such assessment: defining the Holocaust, and compiling the data. On the former, I read it not as making a distinction (as our current revision states), but as trying to avoid the problem by making a more general statement ("era of the Holocaust"); on the latter, I think it is usable as-is. I'll make some edits and we'll see where we stand. François Robere (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Done.[1] François Robere (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

That's too much change. I've replaced the 11 million with "millions". Note that the sources are talking about the Holocaust and the "Holocaust era", which are different periods. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Self talk? Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 36#Enumerating Non-Jewish Deaths.--Moxy 🍁 19:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the IP has misunderstood. It isn't 11 million overall; it is 6 + 11. But I agree that it's better not to specify the 11 million. This article is about the Holocaust only. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The IP has it right - the figure is usually cited as a total (also see the Times of Israel, Jewish Review of Books links).

Re: "Holocaust" versus "Holocaust-era" - RS do make the distinction, and it's clear in either revision of the body; the problem was that the infobox made it clumsily and inaccurately. Instead of redefining things on my own, I opted to just clean things up and get some feedback.

Regarding what should be listed in the infobox - if we don't keep a comprehensive list there, then a) I'd rather we at least keep the non-Jewish communities that were slated for immediate and wholesale destruction, specifically the Romani, homosexuals, dissidents, artists and people with disabilities; and b) that the amended list is moved to the body, replacing the existing phrasing (the second part here). François Robere (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The IP doesn't have it right regarding this article. Re: your point (a), all these groups weren't "slated for immediate and wholesale destruction". Sorry, I don't understand (b). SarahSV ^(talk) 22:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe, but their point regarding the numbers stands.

Re: (b) - this edit has three parts; I'd like to restore the second and third parts, and incorporate the correct numbers (from the first part) in the second. Unless you object, I'll make an edit after 1RR has passed and we can continue the discussion with something more concrete.

Re: (a) I'll try to clarify, since I think my point was not taken as intended: first of all, I'm aware of the politics of the issue (see eg. what Moxy wrote below), and have no intention of reinforcing them. Second, we've had a lot of discussions around the TA specifically on whether to state that ethnic Poles were victims of a genocide, and my position has always been the same:[2] that there were some groups that were persecuted more or less concurrently since the rise of the Third Reich; that were slated for destruction in some foreseeable future; and whose destruction had already progressed during the war. Those groups include those I listed above (but not, for example, Soviet POWs or the majority of ethnic Poles), and I'm okay treating them differently in contexts like this. Hence my suggestion that if we narrow the infobox listing based on the distinction between "Holocaust" and "Holocaust era" (which is an interesting solution to the uniqueness issue, and I think a relatively recent one), then we still specifically list those groups as "other victims of the Holocaust era", rather than mention none of them. François Robere (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

François Robere, you wrote: "our sourcing standards aren't always up to par". Which sources in this article aren't up to par? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I wasn't referring to any particular source, but rather to the longstanding issues with sourcing throughout the TA, of which we're both aware. François Robere (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Those issues don't apply to this article that I know of. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: No intention to offend. I know you do a lot of work on sourcing, and I'll take your word for it. François Robere (talk) 12:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

François Robere SlimVirgin Why not for the infobox for deaths just put 17 million 6 million Jewish deaths?84.208.159.63 (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC) [3][4]

When you add up the Jewish deaths and non-Jewish deaths you get 17 million deaths from the Holocaust and Nazi Persecution https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution.84.208.159.63 (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Old and tested system "blur the uniqueness of Jewish suffering" " the more the merrier"......one of the ways Holocaust deniers work is by asserting that all numbers of other victims be associatied with the Jewish Question and Final Solution thus making the number seem less relevant or that they were not specifically targeted and we're just caught up in the fold. The Holocaust Museum in attempt to outline numbers has put fuel on this fire as they are being used to the detriment of their purpose.-Moxy 🍁 02:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Moxy: The discussion you linked suggests the USHMM is not an RS. Am I reading that correctly? François Robere (talk) 12:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Request

François Robere, I don't understand your post above. First, this article is about the genocide of the European Jews between 1941 and 1945. It isn't about the Holocaust era and the other groups that were targeted during that period (1933–1945). We have stand-alone articles about those other groups.

Second, can you say clearly what you're proposing? I don't understand the issue of the edit having three parts, etc. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: First - Understood. However, we just moved from "listing all of the others" to "listing none of the others", and I'm not sure that's a right move.

Re: Second - I'll make the edit and ping you for comment, okay? François Robere (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I've settled for this for the body, and this for the infobox. François Robere (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted. The article isn't about other groups, and there have been objections to the figures. Please don't restore detailed figures about other groups to the lead or infobox. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin:

1. I didn't restore detailed figures to the infobox, just one general estimate.
2. The lead already has detailed figures, only they're not exactly what the source states. There's no reason not to cite the source correctly while Moxy's objections are being looked at. François Robere (talk)

RfC - First sentence in lede

Which of these options you support for the first sentence in the introduction of this article (feel free to add more if you deem it necessary):

Option 1 (the current version): The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah, was the World War II genocide of the European Jews.

Option 2: The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah, was the genocide of European Jews during World War II.--Watchlonly (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Option 2 It doesn't change the meaning of sentence in any meaningful way and avoids a WP:SEAOFBLUE of different links.--Watchlonly (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2: Calling it a "World War II genocide" sounds awkward to me. I much prefer to say it happened during World War II. Loki (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2: In addition to satisfying WP:SEAOFBLUE, the proposed change streamlines the grammatical and logical structure of the sentence, making it easier to understand without changing the conveyed meaning. warmly, ezlev. talk 17:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 It clearly identifies which genocide of European Jews is meant (vs. earlier pogroms), which should be its purpose. It does not imply causal links between the war and the genocide, which should be stated explicitly in following sentences rather than implied. It feels more deliberate than rushed, which is appropriate for an introduction and a serious subject. Jontel (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2. Sounds more natural. - Daveout(talk) 18:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 of the two, but it still needs work; it doesn't mention the actual actors. The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah, was the genocide of European Jews by Nazi Germany. Implies the time period adequately for the header. Or something like that. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 Better structured sentence. Though I am not certain why we are linking World War II, since it is also linked elsewhere in the article. Dimadick (talk) 18:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Usually, the first occurrence of a term is the one that's linked. —El Millo (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 per Ezlev. —El Millo (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 flows better and removes the sea of blue. Jonmaxras (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• Either, just use "Europe's Jews" or "Europe's Jewry" instead of "European Jews". If Option 2, add "conducted" before "during". François Robere (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with "European Jews"? —El Millo (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
    • "European" can either characterize a trait ("it's very European") or suggest descendance or belonging, which is why it can look weird when used like it's used here here (what about the non-European Jews?). "Europe's" can only suggest descendance or belonging ("of Europe"), so the problem doesn't recur; and since we're discussing a community rather than a group of individuals the correct phrasing would be "Europe's Jewry", though "Europe's Jews" is also okay. François Robere (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
      • "European Jews" shouldn't be controversial. It simply means Jews who lived in the European continent (for several centuries I would add). The discussion regarding equality under the law and the fact that Jews are not originally from there has nothing to do with this discussion whatsoever. The term simply describes a geographic location, it's not a political statement, just like saying "European rivers" or "European cities". On a different note, why do you want to add "conducted during World War II"? An encyclopedia is supposed to economize words and try to be as concise and precise as possible, "conducted" in this context seems redundant. A genocide doesn't just "happen" like a tornado or rain, it has to be perpetrated by people (many times through institutions, states, organizations, etc), we don't need to explain that.--Watchlonly (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
        • I agree with François Robere. People move, unlike rivers and cities, and European Jews i.e. Jews originating from Europe did, so this is introducing a little ambiguity. Thus we talk about European settlers, European colonists etc. Europe's Jewry (better) or Europe's Jews i.e. the Jewry located in Europe would be more specific and is the correct term. Jontel (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
        • Yes, but when discussing the rivers that flow through Europe as a group, you would usually say "Europe's rivers", ie the rivers of Europe (Europe's cities, England's football teams, Russia's national dish). As for "conducted" - I agree about conciseness, but it just feels like something is missing in that sentence. François Robere (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
        • I suppose the full correct sentence would be 'The Holocaust, also known as the Shoah, was the genocide of Europe's Jewry (which took place) during World War II'. I am not sure what an appropriate verb would be. While the phrase in brackets could be added, it is easily inferred. Jontel (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 per nom and because it is grammatically unambiguous that "World War II" refers to the timeframe; in Option 1, "World War II" functions as an adjective, and while most native-speakers of English would not assume that it is describing a type of genocide, it is nonetheless not grammatically the best way to express the timeframe, while Option 2 is. --Chefallen (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 is better than option 1 as per above, but the dates rather than link to the war would be better and it would also be good to name the perpetrators (e.g. "Nazi Germany and its collaborators") in the opening sentence, as some commenters have already urged in the previous discussion section. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with both suggestions: using dates avoids any suggestion of unstated implications and the identity of the perpetrators is obviously a critical component of the event. Jontel (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Option 2 is clearer. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Comment It is absolutely absurd that this has got to the stage of RfC, when the two sentences are to all intents and purposes identical. I couldn't care less which you use.Boynamedsue (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Non-discussion comments

Please note that this RfC is the result of an earlier discussion on this talk page, titled "WP:SEAOFBLUE". I've set that discussion so it won't archive until the same date as this RfC. I'm also going to notify each involved editor from that discussion about this RfC, in accordance with the guidelines at WP:APPNOTE. warmly, ezlev. talk 17:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Option 2 on one condition: I'm Jewish... Earlier I took offence at the implication of the proposed sentence structure – one could take from that that there have been several genocides of Jews: if this was the genocide during WWII, are there any others, you could think to ask. Option 1 would lend one to be LESS likely to make such an inference. I still don't believe the sentence flows any better with Option 2, but it would be better to use "European Jewry" as opposed to "European Jews". It just sounds more respectful giving those who perished in the Holocaust a collective title.

Sometimes it isn't all about being "grammatically correct", the same way it isn't always right to be "politically correct". That's my opinion. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jontel, please see SarahSV's comments on the previous talk page. The historical persecutions, pogroms, massacres etc. against Jews have NOT been categorised as a 'Holocaust'. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 00:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say 'genocide' in the final sentence and not 'Holocaust'. Also, apologies for not responding directly in the same format – I'm not familiar with editing on Wikipedia. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm also Jewish. I don't know what your objection has to do with this discussion, but YES, there were other genocides against Jews before the Holocaust, despite you don't know it. The last genocide was the biggest one, it was 'industrialized' and we have pictures, but the extermination of Jews was nothing new back then. Check for example Bar Kokhba revolt, Khmelnytsky Uprising and Pogroms during the Russian civil war. Many scholars consider those were genocides, not to mention numerous killings and persecutions of Jews in Europe and elsewhere that don't qualify as genocide.--Watchlonly (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The exchange in the section above about the phrase "the European Jews" is too depressing for words, so all I can do is refer people to The Destruction of the European Jews by Raul Hilberg. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is a good example. The author is not a native English speaker and one can hardly say that Europe's Jews were destroyed when one third survived, according to this article, so that does not seem grammatically correct, either. Book titles tend to privilege impact over precision and have space constraints. Jontel (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@WatchIonly, no there have not been other genocides against Jews. Look up term 'genocide' in a dictionary. Which scholars consider those events genocides? Durdyfiv1 (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@François Robere and Jontel, regarding your comparative example of rivers, the Jews who lived in Europe at that time were European. Rivers are not inherently "European", they happen to exist in Europe.

WatchIonly – even if the argument can be made that other past tragedies in Jewish history can, and have been, technically termed a 'genocide', I think you can agree with me that no event in past Jewish history can quite compare to the Holocaust. The fact there has been unanimous consensus on the correct way to term the Holocaust validates this... You are comparing chalk and cheese – a few hundred thousand to 6 million. Durdyfiv1 (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2021

In the section on non-Jewish victims, a hatnote to List of Nazi genocides might be helpful as a main page for the topic. Mondodi (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Mondodi, I'm not sure that list article should have been approved at all, given that it relies on only two sources; of the two, one is questionable per WP:RSP and neither support the application of the term "genocide" with regard to the groups listed. However, I have added a hatnote to Holocaust victims. warmly, ezlev. talk 03:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Source issue

Moxy, what's your objection to the USHMM? SarahSV ^(talk) 19:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Why would the lead use different numbers then the article itself and all the other articles. We have talked about that one page with the chart on it before.... can't find old talk...nor who was originally blocked for spamming and changing numbers all over because of it. Some of the numbers on that page and editor calculations don't match scholarly and peer-reviewed publications nor do they match what the USHMM says on other pages or what we are saying in our articles. For instance Soviet prisoners of War (before your revert) said 3 million as per the source. Normal estimate is between 3.3 and 3.5 million ....not just 3...half a million is a big difference. We say 3.3 and 3.5 at our Soviet prisoners of War article. The USHMM source we use at our Soviet prisoners article specifically says 3.3. Our main source say 3.3 to 3.5 David M. Crowe (2013). Crimes of State Past and Present: Government-Sponsored Atrocities and International Legal Responses. Routledge. p. 85. ISBN 978-1-317-98682-9.. So in my view that one page should be used with caution and accompanied with a secondary source. We should rely on what the majority of sources say and NOT just that one page for all our numbers. Its fine to use the USHMM, but only if the numbers match most publications including what the USHMM says on other pages that are not an amalgamation of primary sources without modern context as is seen at other USHMM pages.--Moxy 🍁 20:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It's this page we're discussing. It says around three million Soviet POWs. Are you perhaps looking for a precision that doesn't exist? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Simply looking to regurgitate what most scholarly sources say including the USHMM. Why would we use a less accurate source that give zero context or further information on the topic? To me half a million individuals is one hell of a thing to get wrong. The USHMM has more accurate numbers on topic specific pages with contextual information and we can use many other scholarly publications with historical context.--Moxy 🍁 20:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It's the same with the Jews: between five and six million. How do you know that the higher USHMM figure for the Soviet POWs is the more accurate? Why do you prefer Porter (in Crowe, p. 85)? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not the same .....most source say between five and six million Jews, thus we do the same here. As for Soviet prisoners the vast majority of sources say 3.3 to 3.5 even the USHMM on the page about the topic. So we should say the normal numbers....not the 'lower estimate from primary sources that even the USHMM does not use on topic-specific articles. --Moxy 🍁 21:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Moxy, I don't know how much you know about this or whether you're new to it. We give detailed figures for the Jews. The figures for Soviet POWs are not known with anywhere near the same precision. Which primary sources are you referring to? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Knowledgeable enough to know that scholarly publications by historians should be used over a websites when they conflict..... especially when the numbers conflict within the website itself. I am always weary when someone new to the topic comes with only this source...tells me they are not aware of what experts say or what the USHMM says are modern more accurate estimates.--Moxy 🍁 21:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what "knowledgeable enough" means. Can you explain, please, why you favour Porter and say which primary sources you're referring to? SarahSV ^(talk) 22:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I favore the number ranges used by the majorty of sources and that the USHMM uses on pages that takes into account more than just the primary documents related to that one page. Let's give another example of a specific number vs the range by most sources : 312,000 Serbs again a very specific number as per the calculation of primary documents used for that one page. Yet per many sources the estimate is much broader in nature more like 200,000 to 500,000 (Yad Vashem) with the USHMM saying 320,000 and 340,000 on there page about the tropic .Mercedes Camino (9 June 2018). Memories of Resistance and the Holocaust on Film. Springer. pp. 107–. ISBN 978-1-137-49969-1.. Perhaps get others involved.....not much more I can say.--Moxy 🍁 23:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

• @Moxy: When you say "the majority of sources", surely you're not claiming to have read all the sources about the Holocaust, such that you can ascertain what the majority of those sources say. What I think you mean is "most sources I've read", which begs the question: what sources are you referring to? Which books? Etc. Levivich ^harass/_hound 00:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Referring to the numbers and sources we use here on Wikipedia (in this and other articles) that have been discussed by the community already....why use different number and different sources in the lead and random chart Holocaust victims. --Moxy 🍁 01:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 February 2021

Ukrainians or Soviet civilians should be mentioned in the lead as they are stated as victims of Nazism on the page. The Source in the opening States regular Ukrainians and Slavic civilians, were victims of Nazism so they should be in the lead also. From the source in the lead,

Dan Stone (Histories of the Holocaust, 2010): "Europe's Romany (Gypsy) population was also the victim of genocide under the Nazis. Many other population groups, notably Poles, Ukrainians, and Soviet prisoners of war were killed in huge numbers.37.214.1.26 (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC) 37.214.1.26 (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)