Talk:Holocaust victims

Yad Vashem holdings (updated)

As of May 2016, from the museum's names database FAQ: Questions about the Database > How many names are there in the Names Database? "More than 6.5 million personal records from a multitude of original sources appear in the Names Database... Currently, we estimate the number of separate individual victims who were murdered and are commemorated in the Names Database to be 4.5 million. In addition, the Database contains partial information on hundreds of thousands of victims whose fate cannot be determined on the basis of the sources available to us. These numbers will grow as we enrich the Database with additional data sources." Please update the reference in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.78.68.6 (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The "Holocaust victims" has to be named "Genocide victims of WWII". The article did not match the definition of Holocaust. See article "The Holocaust".

Typo in the main diagram

Really? There's a typo in the pie chart? It says "etnic poles" - surprised this made it through. Someone will need to fix it Yazman (talk) 09:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Holocaust Memorial Museum

The article has this sentence: The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) states: “The Holocaust was the murder of six million Jews and millions of others by the Nazis and their collaborators during World War II." This is not accurate. The statement actually reads: “The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators." Non-Jewish victims appear in the next paragraph, which states:"During the era of the Holocaust, German authorities also targeted other groups" and goes on to list them by name, but not number. The next section gives numbers for the Roma (200,000) and the mentally disabled (200,000), and in the subsequent paragraph "thousands of political opponents (including Communists, Socialists, and trade unionists) and religious dissidents (such as Jehovah's Witnesses)". They make the distinction between the Holocaust and any contemporary Nazi programs. As the main Wikipedia article, The Holocaust, makes clear, Holocaust with a capital "H" refers purely to the Jewish victims and to no others. It is permissible to use "holocaust" with a small "h" to refer to non-Jewish victims, but it is probably confusing. Certainly, Holocaust Memorial Day in the UK commemorates only the Jewish genocide, which explains the comment further down. This article should be called: "Victims of Nazi persecution" with a link from the Holocaust articles.

Also, if I remember correctly, this article originally had statistics in the form of a chart relating to the number of victims from each group. This should be reinstated, as without it, the sense of the human cost for each group is lacking. Apart from the Soviets, the true scale of the Nazi civilian persecutions is hard to grasp in this article. (It turns out I do not remember correctly. If anyone knows which article has/had the chart, please put in a link/paste. Thank you) OsmNacht (talk) 16:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The quote is accurate. "The Holocaust was the murder of six million Jews and millions of others by the Nazis and their collaborators during World War II." Prinsgezinde (talk) 04:05, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the quote is not accurate. There was an earlier version of the museum's page that had this as a definition, but no more. The Museum's current definition is as I stated above, and specifically excludes all non-Jewish victims. Only Germany commemorates all those who died under Nazi persecution.OsmNacht (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I have found your quote. It is in the text of an animated map at which I had only glanced before. They must have missed it when they were updating the definition, as they have frequently. The new official definition is in the first paragraph of "Introduction to the Holocaust". It is true that it has taken some time for them to arrive at this statement, but it is generally accepted now, and underlies the UN programme, for instance. The UK government certainly accepts it, as does the BBC.OsmNacht (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC) OsmNacht (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.24.53 (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the Nazis distinguished between anarchists and communists or other leftists in their records of prisoners: they were all given the red triangle. Epa101 (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Catholic victims

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

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)

---

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. 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):

7. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Serb Victims?

Why does this page lack a section on the Serbs? Around 1 Million Serbs were killed by the Nazi (and Puppet) regimes and Yugoslavia lost the second highest percentage of its population of any country in Europe (behind Poland). Hitler himself said "My three enemies are the Serbs the jews and the Communists" so I highly recommend someone make a section on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Of The Moas (talk • contribs) 08:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to back up your statement with a Reliable Source for it to be included in the article. I've never read that Serbs were ever targeted for mass-murder in the philosophical manner that Jews, Gypsies, etc., were by the National Socialist's. Many Yugoslavs died as casualties of battle during WWII, of course.HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

How about the information contained here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_persecution_of_Serbs ("The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has estimated that Ustaša authorities murdered between 320,000 and 340,000 ethnic Serb residents of Croatia and Bosnia between 1941 and 1945 (the period of Ustaše rule), of whom between 45,000 and 52,000 were murdered at the Jasenovac concentration camp alone. According to the Federal Institute for Statistics in Belgrade, the 'actual' figure of the casulties suffered within Yugoslavia's border of war-related causes during the second world war was ca. 597,323 deaths. Of these, 346,740 were Serbs and 83,257 were Croats.") 63.241.40.124 (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure why the Serbs should be singled out but, under Hitler's policy of Lebensraum, all Slavs were due to be deported, enslaved or killed, and many millions were.OsmNacht (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

"millions"

"As the war started, millions of Jews were concentrated in ghettos." That is awful for vagueness, and "concentrated in ghettos " seems unmerited. How many in ghettos, how many not, in which countries? For such a topic more sensitivity to best know facts and specifications of their range/accuracy should be used rahter than such offhand approaches. Anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wblakesx (talk • contribs) 19:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Holocaust victims

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Holocaust victims's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Paul Berben p. 142":

• From Reichskonkordat: Paul Berben; Dachau: The Official History 1933–1945; Norfolk Press; London; 1975; ISBN 0-85211-009-X; p. 142
• From Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany: Paul Berben; Dachau: The Official History 1933–1945; Norfolk Press; London; 1975; ISBN 0-85211-009-X; p. 142

Reference named "Ian Kershaw p.381-382":

• From Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany: Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; W.W. Norton & Co; London; pp. 381–82
• From Mit brennender Sorge: Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; WW Norton & Company; London; p. 381–382
• From Reichskonkordat: Ian Kershaw; Hitler: A Biography; 2008 Edn; W.W. Norton & Co; London; pp. 381–82
• From Pope Pius XI: Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; WW Norton & Company; London; p.381-382

Reference named "William L. Shirer p234-5":

• From Pope Pius XI: William L. Shirer; The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; Secker & Warburg; London; 1960; p234-5
• From Catholic resistance to Nazi Germany: William L. Shirer; The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; Secker & Warburg; London; 1960; p 234–5
• From Reichskonkordat: William L. Shirer; The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; Secker & Warburg; London; 1960; pp. 234–35
• From Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany: William L. Shirer; The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; Secker & Warburg; London; 1960; pp. 234–35

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Slovene mentioned but not Croats despite both collaborating?

Croats had a huge representation in Partisan military, resulting in many killed in line of duty and those whos families were killed by Ustase and Nazis. Why are Slovene victims mentioned but not Croatian ones? Jasenovac had about 20,000 Croats alone. 128.205.70.112 (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Holocaust victims/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilverplateDelta (talk · contribs) 13:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Good Article Criteria Table

Will be filled in as I progress with the review.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section):

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   c (No original research):

   d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):

   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.: I recommend suggesting the article for temporary semi-protection.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): All but 1 images are in the public domain. The odd one out is the work of the poster.

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Notes

—I see an edit war in this articles future. The page has been vandalized 4 times in the past week. This will detract from the over all score. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverplateDelta (talk • contribs) 13:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I have been watching the article, the issue seems to have been resolved, therefore PASSING its GA review.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Holocaust victims. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bahai.de/deutsche-gemeinde/geschichte-100-jahre/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No way this belongs in this article

I removed the following excerpt from the "Others" section. The part about wealthy Germans being sent to concentration camps was unsourced, and the part about German women's rights under the Nazi regime, while accurate and sourced, has nothing to do with the article. Sure they can be considered victims of the Nazis, but not the Holocaust. They weren't being rounded up and killed like all the other groups in the article. Even though the rest of the Others section isn't sourced either, it at least seems germane to the article. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"During the late 1930s, a Nazi program branding many wealthy Germans "enemies of the state" confiscated property and sent thousands of people to concentration camps. According to Nazi policies formulated in part by Joseph Goebbels, the rich manipulated the German economy and held seditious, liberal views contrary to Nazism.[citation needed]

Historians have paid special attention to the efforts by Nazi Germany to reverse the gains women made before 1933, especially in the liberal Weimar Republic.[109] Theoretically, the Nazis believed that women must be subservient to men, avoid careers, devote themselves to childbearing and child-rearing, and be helpmates of the traditional dominant fathers in the traditional family;[110] this was commonly known as Kinder, Küche, Kirche, a concept pre-dating the Third Reich. While prior to 1933, women played important roles in the Nazi organization,[111] in 1934, Hitler proclaimed, "[Woman's] world is her husband, her family, her children, her house."[112] Laws that had protected women's rights were repealed and new laws were introduced to restrict women to the home and in their roles as wives and mothers. Women were barred from government and university positions. Women's rights groups (such as the Bund Deutscher Frauenvereine) were disbanded, and replaced with new social groups that would reinforce Nazi values.[113]"

When is a "victim" a "Holocaust victim"?

An issue has arisen at Zsa Zsa Gabor: when is a German (also Hungarian) Jew in the 1930s regarded as a "Holocaust victim"? Is there any sort of recognised start date? Many people saw the (sometimes literally) "writing on the wall" and left Europe before WWII. Some left early, and left with relative ease having been able to sell property for a fair price and take money with them. Others left during a period of relative personal safety, but economic disadvantage, and left businesses etc. behind them. Others then only escaped barely at the last minute. Others, of course, went through the wartime period and the camps.

For a case like Zsa Zsa Gabor, is it appropriate to use the term "Holocaust victim"? Does this vary geographically for the same time period? It's unclear in Germany, but presumably French cases would be dated from the Occupation (even though some French Jews left before the outbreak of war). Would Austria or Czechoslovakia similarly date from the Anschluss and the Sudetenland annexation? (and note that these slightly pre-date Kristallnacht).

Thoughts? Robust external sources? Has there ever been an internationally recognised definition of terms? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yenish people

Does anyone know whether the Yenish people were persecuted in Nazi Germany, as the Romanis were? Epa101 (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Greetings to Dougweller

Hi Doug.

Sorry that I found an old feedback from you back in 2013 (Yes, a long overdue) (Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holocaust_victims&oldid=536514085)

What I addressed to you at that time was trying to tell you that "Formosa" was for a region (geographically, it means the Island of Taiwan, named by Portuguese when they first identified it in voyage, which is named as Taiwan by Qin <Chinese> Empire), not referring to a country nor sovereignty. So when you addressed CKS (the old ROC China), Formsa must not be included at that moment (prior 1945, when Japan & Germany were allies).

Hoping this late response would get to you. (I'm having problem in figuring out how the wiki interface works, sorry guys).

Ark89044300 (talk) 07:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC) ark89044300 04/02/2017

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Holocaust victims. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303081500/http://www.holocaust-education.dk/baggrund/eutanasi.asp to http://www.holocaust-education.dk/baggrund/eutanasi.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011014249/http://www.ushmm.org/education/resource/poles/poles.pdf to http://www.ushmm.org/education/resource/poles/poles.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121210071945/http://mill-valley.freemasonry.biz/persecution.htm to http://mill-valley.freemasonry.biz/persecution.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Europe v World loss

from Holocaust_victims#Jews:

The European Jewish population was reduced from 9,740,000 to 3,642,000;

the world's Jewish population was reduced by one-third, from roughly 16.6 million in 1939 to about 11 million in 1946

The difference of the first figures is 6,098,000, but 16.6 million minus 11 million is 5.6 million. Something seems off here. Would the difference of 498,000 reflect Jews who moved out of Europe rather than dying? ScratchMarshall (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

alleged 1979 article

Kampeas, Ron (31 January 2017). "'Remember the 11 million'? Why an inflated victims tally irks Holocaust historians". jta.org. It is, however, a number without any scholarly basis. Indeed, say those close to the late Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal, its progenitor, it is a number that was intended to increase sympathy for Jewish suffering but which now is more often used to obscure it.

.. The "5 million" has driven Holocaust historians to distraction ever since Wiesenthal started to peddle it in the 1970s. Wiesenthal told the Washington Post in 1979, "I have sought with Jewish leaders not to talk about 6 million Jewish dead, but rather about 11 million civilians dead, including 6 million Jews." {{cite web}}: line feed character in |quote= at position 259 (help)

I am trying to verify this claim from Kampeas. If this Washington Post quote exists, is anyone able to find out the month/day in 1979 it was published, its title and author? Perhaps a link to where we could view it online if possible? I would like to cite it as a compliment to Kampeas' article. This is rather important since Jimmy Carter also referenced this in 1979 on April 24th:

"Jimmy Carter: Days of Remembrance of Victims of the Holocaust Remarks at a Commemorative Ceremony". ucsb.edu. Our words pale before the frightening spectacle of human evil which was unleashed on the world and before the awesomeness of the suffering involved; the sheer weight of its numbers: 11 million innocent victims exterminated, 6 million of them Jews.

So I'm trying to figure out who said it first. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

inflation section removed

@Grayfell: I am trying to understand your reasoning in special:diff/811992621 where you wrote "American-centric recentism, trivia, and WP:OR. This misrepresents sources, context, and the rest of this article."

I do not believe you have supported your objections. Here is where I left off:

24 April 1979 Jimmy Carter referred to 11 million victims including 6 million Jews. Historian Deborah Lipstadt objected to the "eleven" figure in 2011. After these figures were tweeted by the Israeli Defense Forces' spokesperson in January 2017, and Donald Trump staffer Hope Hicks linked CNN to a 2015 Huffington Post article citing the 5 million statistic it prompted a rebuttal 2 days later from journalist Ron Kampeas who (while agreeing that 6 million Jews died) criticized the statistics of 11 million total and resulting implied difference of 5 million non-Jews as an invention of Simon Wiesenthal. Kampeas cited a recent interview with Yehuda Bauer who said he told Wiesenthal it was a lie. According to Kampeas, Wiesenthal told the Washington Post in 1979: "I have sought with Jewish leaders not to talk about 6 million Jewish dead, but rather about 11 million civilians dead, including 6 million Jews."

I'll address your complaints point by point:

American-centric: is this a reference to Lipstadt and Kampeas being Americans? Wiesenthal was Austrian, however. Aside from using Bauer (an Israeli) as a source, here is another Israeli. Surely that is a significant nationality considering the issue, if you must shrug Americans aside?

• Moore, Deborah (2009). p. 78 https://books.google.ca/books?id=beAGmQ7tDQgC&pg=PA78. In Yehuda Bauer's view, the Wiesenthal position is seriously flawed historically as well as conceptually: "It is apparently no less a man than Simon Wiesenthal ... who has invented the '11 million' formula that is a key slogan in the denial of the uniqueness of the Jewish experience. Wiesenthal is going around campuses and Jewish congregations saying that the Holocaust was the murder of 11 million people -- the six million Jews and five million non-Jews who were killed in the Nazi camps. In purely historical terms this is sheer nonsense. The total number of people who died in concentration camps during the war period -excepting Jews and Gypsies- was about half a million, perhaps a little more. On the other hand, the total number of non-Jewish civilian casualties during the war caused by Nazi brutality cannot be less than 20-25 million. . . . Probably some 2.5 million Soviet POWs died in special camps that were not part of the concentration camp system (though some thousands were shipped to concentration camps and murdered there)." Yehuda Bauer, "Whose Holocaust?" Midstream, November 1980, 43. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
• Segev, Tom (2012). The Life and Legends - Simon Wiesenthal. p. 322. It is difficult to ascertain how Wiesenthal reached the conclusion that in addition to the six million Jews, the Nazis also murdered five million non-Jews. The number of non-Jews the Nazis killed in the death camps was much lower, whereas the number of non-Jewish civilians killed in World War II was much higher.

An earlier work on this by another American (I'm not understanding why we should censor American historians):

• Novick, Peter (2000). The Holocaust in American Life. p. 225. And, in the end, how much did this whole six-versus-eleven business matter? To some, of course, a great deal. Particularly for those Jews for whom the Holocaust was a holy event - the deaths of the Nazis' Jewish victims sacred, those of their gentile victims profane - the issue was not negotiable. The same was true of those for whom the "big truth" about the Holocaust was its Zionist lesson - that Jewis hlife in the Diaspora was untenable. For those, including myself, who value precision of expression, "six" describes something specific and determinate; "eleven," even apart from being invented and arbitrary, is unacceptabley mushy. (Wiesenthal's invented number may not have been completely arbitrary, since it combines maximum inclusiveness with the perservation of a Jewish majority.) But if we're concerned, as we are in this chapter, with the images and perceptions of the American public at large, these distinctions may not be all that consequential. Even in the talk of "eleven," Jews are always taken to be at the center, others at the periphery.

Recentism: incorrect, while there was certainly 2017 followup, this has been an ongoing issue for decades, as we can see from Moore's citation of Bauer's 1980 objection to Wiesenthal's 1970 activities.

Trivia: calling this issue trivial seems OR on your part, it has been significant enough for several notable historians to bring up. Statistics which have influenced statements from a US President, the Israeli Defense Forces and referenced by the present US administration is not trivial.

OR: None of this was original research, I listed sources supporting this and have provided even more regarding the controversy which many notable people have written on. I get the sense you're just piling on accusations hoping something will stick.

Misrepresents Sources how? Please be specific about what sources you think I was misrepresenting. What changes would you suggest to how the sources were conveyed?

Misrepresents Context again: please offer some specifics here, and suggestions for improvement. I want to improve on this section and I don't think you should interfere unless you plan to help.

Misrepresents REST OF THE ARTICLE: how? I'm talking about one specific issue regarding historical statements about non-Jewish tallies which have recurred and been highlighted upon a great deal.

Whatever problems you had with the section, I think you should have simply improved the section instead of erasing it entirely. I am open to us working on it here collectively to make improvements (such as incorporating these new sources I've bulleted) before putting it back. ScratchMarshall (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The biggest improvement I could've made was removing it, so I did. If you are serious about working together, shouting isn't appropriate. This section directly cited passing mentions from primary documents, such as Trump's tweets and Carter's speech, and also cited two sources (the first JTA one and the Huffington Post UK article) which did not mention anything at all about the 11 million number being inaccurate. This is a daisy-chain of obscure primary sources to eventually reach a point made by a single source. You have only one source which challenges this number, but this section barely even attempted to summarize what it had to say. This is the only source which says anything at all about inflation. "Inflation" is a painfully, obviously inappropriate section header. In addition to its lazy convenience for holocaust denialists, it's refuting a claim that's never actually made by the article. Nowhere does the article claim that the total number of people who died in the Holocaust is 11 million, so this entire section is downplaying a claim that it doesn't ever make, in support of a fringe perspective. You added a handful of haphazard sources, but did absolutely nothing to summarize the context provided by those sources. It's American-centric because most of the mish-mash of sources are focused on Trump's or Carter's tweeting, but the significance of a couple of President's passing comments to the entire topic is not even remotely demonstrated by these sources as due weight. Again, the biggest improvement I could make was to remove it. This is such a garbled mess of synth shoved under a non-neutral header that it damages the article. Grayfell (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I regret the impression my formatting caused, I did not intend for it to come across as shouting, just thought bumping up the font side would serve better than bolding as point headers. I wish there was an underline button. I had intended to all-caps "sources" and "context" but forgot because I was repeating "misrepresents" and wanted it to stand out.

What is the problem with citing the primary documents of the tweet/speech? This is done to support the references which cite them so people can easily check what it's about. Obviously those on their own would not be notable, it is the additional sources reporting on them which establishes that.

The HuffPo article and the 1st JTA article are not meant to discredit the 11 million, I was simply presenting the sources conveying basic facts which the 2nd JTA article touched upon, just as the additional book sources supplied here talked about the Jimmy Carter speech (since they were published before Trump was elected).

The daisy chain to a single source (a notable one though, the JTA) is only in regards to the recent statement from the IDF and the Hicks-to-CNN linking. The issue of the 11 million (and Jimmy Carter) has been addressed in the sources I just added above:

• Bauer in 1980 via Moore in 2009
• Novick in 2000
• Segev in 2012

If you object to the header, what would be preferable alternatives? Novick uses the phrase "invented number" and Bauer used "invented" as well but I'm not sure how that would work. How about "numerical misrepresentation" ? That should open with a basic link to Holocaust denial which covers the cases of people deflating the numbers of Jews who died, but since this is a case of inflating the number of non-Jews who died it wouldn't fit under denial.

Nowhere does the article claim that the total number of people who died in the Holocaust is 11 million

Can you clarify which article you mean since I have mentioned many here? The IDF tweet "11 million men, women & children, including 6 million Jews, perished in the Holocaust" is one of the things the Kampeas article was responding to. If you're talking about HuffPo, it does say it, I just didn't include all quotes when citing:

The 5 Million Non-Jewish People Killed By The Nazis

Six million Jewish people were murdered during the genocide in Europe in the years leading up to 1945

Historians estimate the total number of deaths to be 11 million

It wasn't in the title but it was in the body. ScratchMarshall (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about this Wikipedia article, which lists 17 million civilian deaths as only one of several suggestions. You built an entire section about a single source with the end result of underlining a single discrepancy in total disregard to due weight. This excessive level of detail, and warped presentation of that detail, are completely inappropriate and overlap with antisemitic conspiracy theories. I am not inclined to help you make this edit. As I said, it damages the article. The one useful source here would justify, at most, a couple of sentences. Your section was entirely compatible with Holocaust denial tactics, since it emphasized a minor discrepancy and deception as though it were of great significance. This is common among neo-Nazis, since they think it sows seeds of doubt about the academic consensus, even though this is a grotesque distortion of reality. Now that I've pointed this out to you, do not restore this content without either much, much better sources, or a much better attempt at neutrally summarizing what the sources are actually saying. Grayfell (talk) 10:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)