Talk:Holocaust victims

Holocaust victims was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 3, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

The Anarchists?

Although it's generally admitted that many anarchists met their ends at various concentration camps, it's almost impossible to find anything more than that. Why is this? Is it some kind of implicit and unspoken agreement that the murder of the anarchists was justified or unimportant? I can't find any information anywhere. I can't imagine they'd be unrecorded.

Death Toll Numbers

This sentence in the lede:

Taking into account all of the Holocaust victims, the death toll rises considerably. Estimates generally place the number of these victims between three and five million people.

was the exact same sentence, except for a numbers change, that appears in the main Holocaust article. In THIS article, however, it is confusing, because there is no prior mention of "death toll" in the preceding lines, and no prior estimate of the exclusively Jewish death toll. Since this article deals with ALL the victims of the Nazis, I have reworded the sentence to better reflect the cited source, which deals not only with victims of the extermination camps, but also other deaths. I’ve also added more sources that support the numbers I provided. Grumpy otter 12:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence seems to imply that 37 + 6 = 40:

...Nazis systematically killed an estimated 6 million Jews and were responsible for an estimated 37 million additional deaths during the war. Donald Niewyk suggests that the broadest definition, including Soviet civilian deaths, would produce a death toll of 40 million people killed.

The Romani Section

I tried to discover who had written this sentence in the Romani section, but I could not figure out an easy way of searching--anyway, my comment/question is in regard to this sentence:

Hitler's campaign of genocide against the Romani population of Europe involved a particularly bizarre application of Nazi "racial hygiene".

The "particularly bizarre" part is intriguing, but the section does not explain why the Romani genocide was unique. Does anyone know? I'd like the author or someone else to expand on this idea.

Grumpy otter 13:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons

I just drew a line between the racial and political reasons. I guess it's an important thing, especially since the definition of genocide. --HanzoHattori 22:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic victims

I read once that a huge number of Catholics were executed in the camps. Comments?--Filll 05:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler was, for the most part, anti-Catholic. The Nazi paper Das Schwarze Korps ran many articles mocking Catholicism and the Pope. Hitler rennounced Catholicism and seemed to support Protestantism and "freethinking" Christianity. Whether intentional or not, many Catholics were indeed killed in the Holocaust. Catholic clergy members were often sent to internment camps. Catholic Poles were also common victims of the Holocaust. -- Callmarcus 26 April 2007

Regardless of whether it was genocide or not, it's disgraceful that there's not even a mention of the millions of Catholics killed.

Most of the Catholics who were killed were not killed specifically because they were Catholics but because they also belonged to other targeted groups such as Poles, Rroma, and so on.

The Nazis also killed large numbers of Lutherans, Calvinists, and of course Orthodox Christians but not specifically because they belonged to those religions.

Only a few religious groups were persecuted specifically for their religion with Jews being the most well known but also including Jehovah's Witnesses and others.

Both Naziism and Communism are almost quasi-religions and Nazi persecution of Communists could also be considered a form of quasi-religious persecution. Nov 8-07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.19 (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That the Nazi's killed Catholics for different reasons than they killed Jews (and this point is debatable) doesn't make it right to omit and ignore the millions of Catholic victims. Who are you to decide which victims deserve mention and which ones don't? Is a Catholic life less valuable than a Jewish? I s a Catholic victim less a victim because he was not killed specifically because he was Catholic. A victim is a victim, a murder is a murder and a human life is a human life. Furthermore, there were thousands of Catholic priests and nuns who were killed and yet, once again, not even a mention. You cannot convince me that members of the Catholic clergy were not murdered because of their allegiance to Rome and to the Catholic Church. The editors of wikipedia are "unbiased" in the same way that the New York Times is unbiased. In this sense, unbiased means advancing a liberal, secular agenda.

On the other hand, there was a Catholic priest, Jozef Tiso, who ruled Slovakia on behalf of the Nazis. Also, the Catholic Church was very enthusiastic about the Ustasha regime in Croatia, which was a puppet state of the Nazis. Wikipedia does not have an agenda here; on the contrary, the normal historical narratives tend to ignore the extent of Catholic collaboration with Hitler's regime. Epa101 (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of the Holocaust

It is extremely bad in Britain, most people when referring to the Holocaust think of it almost entirely as a Jewish event. Belittles the deaths of the countless homosexuals, intellectuals, POWs, Communists, Gypsies, Slavs, etc. Londo06 02:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edited out

For the use in Reichstag fire, Enabling Act of 1933 and/or Gleichschaltung:

After the February 27, 1933 Reichstag fire, an attack blamed on the communists, Hitler declared a state of emergency and had president von Hindenburg sign the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended the Weimar Constitution for the whole duration of the Third Reich. In March 1933, three Bulgarians, Georgi Dimitrov, Vasil Tanev and Blagoi Popov, members of the Comintern, were arrested and wrongly accused of the fire. As a result, the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) was the first party to be forbidden, on March 1, 1933, on the grounds that they were preparing a putsch. This allowed the NSDAP to vote the March 23, 1933 Enabling Act, which enabled Chancellor Adolf Hitler and his cabinet to enact laws without the participation of the Reichstag. These two laws signals the implementation of the Gleichschaltung, which is how the Nazis established their totalitarian rule. On May 2, 1933, following Labor Day, the trade union association ADGB (Allgemeiner Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund) was shattered, when SA and NSBO (Nationalsozialistische Betriebszellenorganisation) units occupied union facilities and ADGB leaders were imprisoned. Other important associations were forced to merge with the German Labor Front (Deutsche Arbeitsfront (DAF)) in the following months.

Jewish history in Germany, Nazism:

The central motif of the Holocaust was the Nazis' desire to annihilate the Jews. Anti-Semitism was common in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s (though its roots go back much further). Adolf Hitler's fanatical brand of racial anti-Semitism was laid out in his 1925 book Mein Kampf, which, though largely ignored when it was first printed, became a bestseller in Germany once Hitler gained political power.

On April 1, 1933, shortly after Hitler's accession to power, the Nazis, led mainly by Julius Streicher, and the Sturmabteilung, organized a one-day boycott of all Jewish-owned businesses in Germany. A series of increasingly harsh laws were soon passed in quick succession. Under the “Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service”, passed by the Reichstag on April 7 1933, all Jewish civil servants at the Reich, Länder, and municipal levels of government were fired immediately. The "Law for the Restoration of a Professional Civil Service" marked the first time since Germany's unification in 1871 that an anti-Semitic law had been passed in Germany. This was followed by the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 that prevented marriage between any Jew and non-Jew, and stripped all Jews of German citizenships (their official title became "subject of the state") and of their basic civil rights, e.g., to vote. Similar restrictions and harassment of 100,000 Germans of part-Jewish descent, known as "mischling" was part of the Nazi regime's fanatical anti-Semitic binge, though most "mischling" are not considered for extermination. ^{[citation needed]}

In 1936, Jews were banned from all professional jobs, effectively preventing them exerting any influence in education, politics, higher education and industry. On 15 November 1938, Jewish children were banned from going to normal schools. By April 1939, nearly all Jewish companies had either collapsed under financial pressure and declining profits, or had been forced to sell out to the Nazi-German government as part of the "Aryanization" policy inaugurated in 1937.

--HanzoHattori 13:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Scan2002.jpg

Image:Scan2002.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:19558.jpg

Image:19558.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

I'm afraid that I am failing this article's GA review. There are numerous problems with it which I don't think can be addressed easily ad would suggest substantial work before this goes before GA again. For such a complex, interesting and controversial subject, 11 references is no where near enough. Entire paragraphs are unreferenced, often containing sentances which need references. e.g. "Scholars disagree as to what proportion of these non-Jewish Polish civilian deaths during the Nazi conquest and occupation of Poland were part of the Holocaust, though there is no doubt of the eventual genocidal intentions of the Nazis towards the Poles." which also contains weasel words. Several references are improperly formatted with raw URLs and even worse, in text links. The prose is disjoined and in places confusing and rarely adheres to the manual of style, there are also many one line sentances. Images are good, but some have improperly formatted or missing copyright notices.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackyd101 (talk • contribs)

You mentioned "Several references are improperly formatted with raw URLs and even worse, in text links." Could you provide an example of a proper reference? Grumpy otter (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Scan2002.jpg

Image:Scan2002.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg

The image Image:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

Image:Lidice massacred men.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two missing categories

I've been on a tour of Dachau concentration camp recently. I've noticed two missing categories.

Emigrants. These were given the blue triangle in the camps. Germans who had lived abroad for several years before returning to Germany were considered to have too many foreign ideas, so they were put into concentration camps.
Street entertainers, beggars and prostitutes were put into camps. They were given the black triangle, which was also given to the Romanies.

I think it would be good if a section on the different triangles could be added to this article. I've not made any changes, as I know that going on a concentration-camp tour doesn't count as evidence. I thought I'd write on here and see if anyone has any academic sources close to hand to back this up. Epa101 (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Vandalism

AN editor seems to have screwed up the page with editing mistakes. I have tried to fix them, but would appreciate a Smart Person checking behind me. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]