Jump to content

Talk:The Holocaust

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeThe Holocaust was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 9, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
January 19, 2006Good article nomineeListed
July 5, 2006Good article reassessmentKept
November 16, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 3, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
June 11, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
October 3, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Template:WP1.0

Jews Only

Thousands and thousands of non-Jews were killed by the Nazi's, why does the opening paragraph state that the Holocaust only refers to the Jewish dead, there were more than just Jews at the camps, everbody knows that and changes should be made, this is the 21st century, we should have gotten this right by now.

We assume people are capable of reading more than the first sentence of the article and continuing to the second. --jpgordon::==( o ) 06:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph should be a summary of the whole doc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.173.77 (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Grammatical Error: programme

The introductory paragraph uses the following test:

"a programme of systematic state-sponsored extermination"

Why would the American variant be preferred? I don't see any obvious trend toward US or UK usage, and where there is no internal inconsistency in an article, neither variant is preferred. Acroterion (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any Wikipedia policy regarding this? As far as standardization? There is the same problem with Hebrew pronunciations (transliterations) in Wikipedia - half the time they use the Yiddish pronunciation, and half the time the Israeli. There is no consistency.Jimhoward72 (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of this issue is that if the article pertains directly to the United States, such as New York, then American spelling should be used. If the article pertains to the United Kingdom, such as London, then British spelling should be used. And so on for other English speaking countries. In this case, where no such connection exists, the spelling standard established when the article was first written should be maintained. Cullen328 (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2010(UTC)
I would advocate the same policy for Hebrew transliterations - Ashkenazi pronunciation for articles about Polish Jews, for example, and Israeli pronunciation for Israeli topics. Cullen328 (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust is Jewish Genocide

The Holocaust article should be reserved only for Jewish victims. Mention of homosexuals, mentally challenged, Romani and other people should, perhaps, be moved to a different article, or perhaps, included in individual articles like Genocide of Romani People etc...Yahalom Kashny (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your opinion on that, but this is not a matter of personal opinion. If many or most of the reliable sources that discuss the topic include groups other than Jews as Holocaust victims, then the Wikipedia article must reflect that scholarly consensus. If you can find several mainstream scholarly sources to back your point of view, then perhaps that judgment could be incorporated into the article. Please note that an editor four sections above had just the opposite concern. Cullen328 (taxlk) 22:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 186.19.195.227, 22 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

I noticed in the section titled "Pogroms (1939–1942)" it says: "[...]on June 30, 1941, in which as many 14,000 Jews were killed by Romanian residents and police [...]" It should say "as many AS". 186.19.195.227 (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for pointing it out. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is too long and repetitive because it's poorly written....

Sorry but the article dwells too much on some aspects and does grand leaps and bounds of over sections. It also reiterates itself time and time again. It needs a good copyeditor to trim it and move wads of material to sub articles, where the information can be expanded and looked at more closely without filling up the main article. In simplicity itself, this article should be the main introduction to the whole topic.

Besides there isn't even a mention of Action 14f13, come on!! If this is mean to to be encyclopdic quality drop the pop culture style and present the facts in a more tidy way, cross referenced with ever other page on the Holocaust. This page is the one stop shop gateway to the whole topic, not just another article among many similar articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.5.223 (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has been pointed out a number of times that this article is too long, messy, not user friendly, etc. There is no doubt in my mind that any general reader who wants to look up something on the proper noun, The Holocaust, will go away confused if not intimidated by the length. No question that it needs a good copy edit, but the fundamental problem is elsewhere. It has been a virtual war zone for competing agendas. It is my experience when major European historians use the proper noun "the Holocaust" they refer to the mass killing of Jews by the Nazis. This is not a POV, but the experience of somebody who has read widely. It is about classifying not an expression of ownership of a tragedy nor the downplaying of the mass murder of an equal number of non-Jewish civilians by the Nazis. (a recent reaffirmation of this definition can be found in Yale History professor Tim Snyder's latest book, Bloodlands--see section Numbers and Terms or location 7593 in its Kindle edition). Thus such a straight-forward definition should lead for example to sources of such a policy, its development and its implementation. It is true that a few historians still take issue with confining the definition to the mass killing of the jews and it would be appropriate to mention this in a sentence with references. But reiteration of the debate belongs elswhere. Having accepted the definition, it is clear that the rather long section 4.2 belongs elsewhere. However past experience leads me to fear that such a change will open a pandora's box as editors want to include their own choices of victims. It was just such editing issues that drove me away from editing this article and I suspect that is true of a number of editors who knew more than I do. As I pointed out long ago, this plays into the hands of those who want to obscure what the Holocaust was about.Joel Mc (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of Revisionism?

I'm a little surprised to see no mention of Irving or Zundel. Any reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.116.40.140 (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spam filtering Holocaust sites

The site holocaustresearchproject.org was spam blaklisted in 2006. The request on Meta is available here. I am considering asking for delisting, but before that I want to start a discussion on the usefulness of the site.

The original request was made by User:JzG after some mild spamming with the following motivation "A ludicrously inaccurate site of no conceivable encyclopaedic value," with a link to a blog posting at holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com.

Studying the blog I found out the following:

  • In 2002 a group of Holocaust scholars and amateurs started something called ARC for Aktion Reinhard Camps, with a web site at deathcamps.org
  • In 2006 a feud broke out between members over the authenticity of some contributed primary source material. See On the demise of deathcamps.org: how fakes and arrogance killed a great undertaking. The feud ends with all members also contributing to the Axis History Forum being ousted.
  • The old deathcamps.org site is "archived" (deathcamps.org/Archived.html) and the remaining members – now renamed to "Holocaust Education & Archive Research Team" (H.E.A.R.T) – starting a new site at holocaustresearchproject.org
  • The ousted AHF members set up a blog at Holocaust Controversies with a sister blog named CODOH Watch. The focus of CODOH Watch seems to be equally divided between Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH) and H.E.A.R.T
  • The competing groups continue with personal attacks – with some of the stuff best described as anal (no need to read this). The other side calls them a hate blog team
  • In the end everyone seems to get banned.

All this is far too complicated to make out who are the good guys and who the bad guys. The site itself however seems useful. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deathcamps.org

I noticed that deathcamps.org is also blacklisted – and checked the history. The blacklisting in 2007 resulted from and intellectual property dispute between deathcamps.org and death-camps.org (now defunct). See Meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#Intellectual property dispute / deathcamps.org. Most of the original argumentation is now moot, as the mirror site death-camps.org no longer exists. The remaining argument against deathcamps.org seems to be, that the Holocaust Controversies blog claims that some of the primary sources presented at the site are not genuine.

Here is what what I have found of the previous discussion.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the summary is simply "advocates of both sites became sufficiently annoying that we just shut the door." --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see what reason there is to whitelist them. Is there something undisputedly reliable there that we can't get anywhere else? Is there a specific reason to whitelist them NOW, or to confirm the blacklist NOW? If not, why not just wait until there is a reason? Smallbones (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without going through the (extensive) history, I seem to remember that animosity between the two factions spilled over onto many wiki 'see also' sections, with links being added, edited and deleted as part of their squabble.
Rather than have that all stirred up again, is there a good reason to un-spam-list them? Do they have info necessary to an article that is not available elsewhere? I doubt it, but if that is the case I'd recommend taking them off the spam list.
Bearing in mind the extent of the Holocaust literature, I'd be very surprised if there was something on ARC (which was a good site, IIRC) that couldn't be found elsewhere. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure the material can be found in books or at least in archives. The question is do we have an abundance of equal or better web sites? The reason I came across the sites is this: www.holocaustresearchproject.org/einsatz/bingel.html As an exercise, could you find the same material somewhere else on the web, or at least make a claim that what is presented by H.E.A.R.T. is crap. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not yet proposed that we whitelist or un-blacklist them. So far I am simply asking if the sites are valuable, and if the claims about being "unreliable" have any merit. Besides, being unreliable or even being simply wrong is not grounds for blacklisting. We do not blacklist Holocaust denial sites. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we just don't allow them as sources or links in any articles other than those explicitly about Holocaust denial. --jpgordon::==( o ) 01:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is HEART a Holocaust denier site? I've used it a couple of times, though each time I've had to go to Meta and ask for an exception for the particular URL. Here's (http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/essays&editorials/index.html) something on the site from Matthew Feldman, an historian at the University of Northampton. The reason I know his name is he's an anti-LaRouche, anti-fascist activist. I can't imagine him posting knowingly on an HD site. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 18:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SV, I'm fairly certain that neither HEART nor the two death camps sites are Holocaust denier sites. I believe the only reason they were blacklisted had to do with the fact that their intellectual property dispute was spilling over onto Wikipedia and driving a lot of edit-warring here. If memory serves, this resulted in them being examined rather closely and editors decided that they couldn't verify what kind of editorial control or fact-checking there was at any of the sites and they were all blacklisted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I first ran into this issue when I was editing the Kurt Gerstein page as the only English translation of the Gerstein Report that I could find was at: deathcamps.org/belzec/gerstein.html. At first if I remember right I had to get some kind of permission to link to it on the WP Gerstein Report page. It is still there and seems to present no problem.(I must take this back since just now I guickly pasted in the whole link above and this edit was blocked. It seems to be a good idea to lift that block.)Joel Mc (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Lucy Dawidowicz statistics "pre-war"

Victims and death toll
By country

"The following figures from Lucy Dawidowicz show the annihilation of the Jewish population of Europe by (pre-war) country"

I would appreciate it if someone could define what "pre-war" exactly means. 1939? Thanks. 188.192.116.156 (talk) 11:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am traveling and don't have Lucy Dawidowicz's book with me, in general she means countries which were in existence before WWII i.e. the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were sovereign states at that time and were incorporated into the Soviet Union after WWII. The table shown is a little confusing i.e. it gives figures for Moravia and Bohemia which in fact were incorporated into Czechoslovakia after WWI. The census data that she was working with would have come from countries reports before WWII and may have included regional names.Joel Mc (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two-thirds of the population of nine million Jews who had resided in Europe before the Holocaust were killed.

Numbers please. Did six million Jews die in the holocaust? Is that what the author is saying?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Holocaust&oldid=402364714"