Jump to content

Talk:The Holocaust

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:601:8c00:ee:5d18:d9f2:629b:2d69 (talk) at 05:17, 5 October 2015 (→‎Holocaustic?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

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

Doesn't take a broad enough view of the origins of the Holocaust

The 'origins' section of this article, though detailed and straight forward, focuses too much on the eugenic motivations of the genocide and largely fails to mention major socio-political factors which were also integral to the reasoning of the major perpetrators, for instance the stab in the back myth and the concept of Jewish Bolshevism. Other genocide articles such as that for the Armenian and Rwandan genocides have 'background' sections which establish a time line of sorts of increasing tension and racism, often making reference to several specific events. A suggestion for how this could look in this article is 'antisemitism in Europe' (which may mention eugenics and the volkisch movement) then 'world war 1' (which could make reference to the notorious german military 'account on Jews') then 'stab in the back myth and German Revolution' (both important in the development of the 'jewish Bolshevism' canard) then 'rise of the nazi party' before continuing the article as it is. These are simply suggestions, and I don't expect everyone or indeed anyone to take them up. However, I just think there should be some major restructuring of this section. Regards Aardwolf A380 (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish resistance section paraphrasing the views of a death camp commander

The section on Jewish resistance provides the views of SS officer and death camp commander Franz Stangl. The excerpt reads "Franz Stangl, who had commanded two death camps, was asked in a West German prison about his reaction to the Jewish victims. He said that only recently he had read a book about lemmings. It reminded him of Treblinka." Wouldn't it be more desirable for Wikipedia to have a more neutral and impartial viewpoint on the behaviour of the Jewish victims than the viewpoint of a death camp commander? I think this last section, with its inflammatory reference to "lemmings" (a reference, it would appear, to the false claim that lemmings commit mass suicide) could be removed from the section of quotations.OnBeyondZebraxTALK 02:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the quote was good enough for Raul Hilberg, I'm quite sure it's good enough for Wikipedia. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

How is the German for an obscure term like Trawniki of any use to anyone? The article is bloated enough as it is, let alone with pointless German translations like Trawnikimänner in it. And why is Hollande's opinion still in this article? His views should be on his own page, not cluttering up this one. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

Latest denial effort
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Shouldn't the introduction say that the actual numbers are disputed? (MannyShinwell (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

No, because there's broad consensus among reliable sources for those numbers. Acroterion (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many historians give the number of Jews killed as 4.5 million. (MannyShinwell (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Who? Acroterion (talk) 15:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Reitlinger said the real figure was between 4.2 and 4.5 million. (MannyShinwell (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Reitlinger who was an art historian wrote several books on Nazi Germany which were published in the 1950s using figures from that time. He died in 1978. Modern European historical work has updated those figures see for example the Wolfgang Benz (1999) ref. in the article. Joel Mc (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The Daily Telegraph" gave a 5 million figure in 2005. (MannyShinwell (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
I don't think "The Daily Telegraph" is an historian. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article was quoting from several historians. As the figures are heavily disputed I'm surprised the introduction does not mention this. (MannyShinwell (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
They're not "heavily disputed." Consensus among reliable sources is about six million. We provide ten references for this. Acroterion (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
President Nasser said the 6 million figure was a lie which no rational person would believe. (MannyShinwell (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]
Nasser was a historian? I thought he was a politician who fought a war with Israel. Acroterion (talk) 16:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Egypt was invaded by Israel in October 1956. Professor Hutton Gibson also questioned the figures in 2004. (MannyShinwell (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

If you're just doing some holocaust denial trolling, we're done here/ Acroterion (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of the word genocide.

In the "Uniqueness" section, it says "The term genocide was coined as a crime against humanity in 1943 by Polish Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin to describe the systematic extermination of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire at the start of the 20th century[446][447] in what would become known as the Armenian Genocide.[448][449][450] Lemkin based the definition of genocide on the Armenian genocide.[451][452][453]". But the sources being cited don't exactly back this up. In fact, in some ways they are explicitly contradictory of this. It seems that the word Genocide was actually coined to describe the actions of the Nazis. "In 1944, Lemkin wrote a book about the Nazis. In it, he combined the Greek "genos" for race with the Latin "-cide" for killing: Genocide. Lemkin had named the crime he spent a lifetime trying to prevent.... Taking hundreds of pages of Nazi laws and decrees, Lemkin wrote a comprehensive book that laid bare the Nazis' brutal plans. And he invented a word for the crime the Nazis were committing. Genocide."(from Citation 451). It seems that, while coining the term to describe the actions of the Nazi party, he perhaps used the Armenian Genocide as an example of the type of behavior he was talking about, as evidenced by "...when Raphael Lemkin coined the word genocide in 1944 he cited the 1915 annihilation of Armenians as a seminal example of genocide" (Auron) but this doesn't actually say that the word was coined to describe said annihilation of Armenians, but rather that it was another example of the word being coined in reference to something else (Note the use of "a seminal example" rather than "the seminal example". Either way, given the specificity of the wording in the sources, to say that the term was coined specifically to describe the Armenian Genocide would, I believe, be WP:SYNTH since at least one of the sources being cited explicitly states that it was coined to describe the actions of the Nazis, and none of them, as far as I can tell, specifically say it was coined to describe the Armenian genocide. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaustic?

The Holocaustic? Is that even a word?