Talk:Holocaust trivialization

Definition

What exactly does "the term used to describe the metaphorical (or otherwise comparative) use of the word "Holocaust"" mean?

To trivialise a subject is to either dismiss it or treat it disrespectfully - not to use the term in a metaphorical sense - whatever that means!

I suggest that before articles like this one are posted, someone really needs to think through what it is about. In this case, is it a topic at all, or shouldn't this be part of the holocaust denial article?JohnC (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Some uses are not at all trivializing and fairly literal. Nuclear holocaust refers to possibly the entire human race being wiped out in a sea of fire, which I do not at all think is "trivializing". Seems unneutral and unnecessarily accusatory. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:49, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I have creeping feeling, that use of term Holocaust exclusively or trying to keep it exclusive for persecuton of jews in nazi germany is itself trivialization of the term... I mean, it's not correct in aspect of literal meaning of 'holos+kaustos'. The word 'holocaust' was in use long before 20th century and so no one, even much-suffered peoples like jews and others persecuted by nazis and others, has copyright or patented use to this. Much preferable is correct term 'shoah', exclusively. This article should be included in main article 'Holocaust'. Mutatis mutandis. Logically, if there are any survivors, no massacre should be called holocaust, as kaustus then is not holos, complete. :) BirgittaMTh (talk) 13:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Happened on this by accident, I have restored the 'pov' tag and added an 'OR' tag. As several people point out above, it is the singular use of the term 'Holocaust' (to mean Shoah), which is the historical anachronism, the term is Greek, not Hebrew or English and was in use long before Nazism. The only distinguishing feature of the 'one' use, is the capitalisation of Holocaust. I don't think the term 'Holocaust trivialization' is sufficiently significant, studied, nor defined and the inclusion of (relatively) trivial examples simply acts to advertise the lack of definition and neutrality. Pincrete (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Is "Holocaust Trivialization" really a Noteworthy?

I accidentally found this article while reading the Wikipedia Article "Holocaust Denial", and tbh I wonder if the topic is really "legit" and if it really merits a separate, standalone article on "trivialization". Are there any other articles, within the totality of Wikipedia, on the topic of genocide, or other heinous crimes, that have separate articles on them for trivializing the heinous crime, genocide, or whatever? Is there "Holodomor Trivialization"? etc... If the topic does merit it's own article, I think the Lede should (somehow) "self-establish" it's own significance, reason for existance immediately, i.e. "The reason why Holocaust trivialization is important is because ..." right up front and center where the Reader is immediately oriented to the subject and why they should care to read about it.

One finds a lot of memes online that trivialize the Holocaust, and I think that the Article would be improved by including at least one of them. Which, as I type this makes me wonder if the topic applies only to "literary" statements, for example when a politician or a journalist compares something that someone considers less important to the Holocaust, to the Holocaust. But does "Holocaust Trivialization" also include memes that mock the Holocaust, turning the worst crime humanity has ever seen into a joke? If so, the article should say this, and post an example or two, so that people who have seen these memes will know what they have been exposed to.2605:6000:6947:AB00:754E:2206:73F3:22BB (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)