Talk:The Holocaust

Subjects of the Holocaust

I can see that there was some discussion of it and one resolved issue that (I think) is supposed to broaden the definition, but it doesn't seem that great to me. If you go back in the archives there's some great points which explain why extermination of Jews in particular should be the main topic of the article and I totally agree with it. Where I now have the issue is that at the moment the article defines the Holocaust as the extermination of Jews and Jews only. This is:

a) inconsistent with the page itself, which later does talk about other groups targeted (e.g. LGBTQ people, Roma people, Poles, Russians, etc.),

b) inconsistent with "Holocaust victims" - how can the Holocaust be only about Jews and somehow Holocaust victims be a larger group - it's a major inconsistency between articles.

c) (I'd say, with my knowledge of history) simply not true, as the Nazis targeted more than just one group with their policies, even in the same ways - as in, for example talking about certain groups destroying Germany and mentioning other groups than Jews as being "detrimental" (or said differently), e.g. LGBTQ people

d) feels exclusionary to people whose families and places experienced the Holocaust, but who were not of Jewish origin or did/do not identify with the Jewish identity - e.g. Polish people, whose families have been exterminated, etc.

e) seems historically and societally significant, as it shows hate (and in this case a very extreme form of it) going outside a particular group or its feature to a broader category of people deemed "worse" or otherwise "lesser", especially in the context of this being the top website listed after Googling "Holocaust".

Given that, I'd suggest framing the article in a way that clearly states the predominant impact of antisemitism and antisemitic narratives on the development of the Holocaust, and the fact that it predominantly targeted Jews, while understanding and acknowledging the fact that other groups were deeply affected and also targeted. I'd suggest adding a death toll for these groups and writing in the entry something along the lines of "[...] was the genocide of European Jews, together with other minorities and ethnicities in occupied territories, during World War II.". This could even be done on it's own, leaving the rest of the article focused on Jews, since I believe that way it frames the issue quite accurately.

P.S. I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so pls be understanding if I messed up some terminology or this issue has been settled for good, etc. Chrisludw (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

No, no—so much no. I have no idea how/why/what/when this article limited the definition of "The Holocaust" to the persecution of Jews, alone—but I cannot emphasize enough just how dangerous that is. My grandfather's family were Hungarian Jews that were murdered; so my own family are among the Holocaust's Jewish victims.

I have studied and followed the telling of Holocaust stories, since I was a teen in suburban Detroit (1980s). Poles, Jews, Communists, gays, Catholics—it was never just about the Jews (in the US; writing from an American social perspective), until major media projects like the Steven Spielberg film that focused on the Jewish experience and the 6 Million Jews, came out. That story needed to be told, and I'm glad it was told! But, The Holocaust is not taught in American schools—and in the US, we desperately need to not ever forget its scope or truth. To limit Wikipedia's article to only the Jewish experience, is such a disservice to the breadth of the 15 Million taken by Hitler's narrowing focus on ethnic cleansing. To never forget, is to never forget; and to limit the scope of this article, is to re-define the Holocaust. Which is not for wikipedians to do. Ninavizz (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes exactly! I totally agree with what you've just written, that was exactly my point. What I did say as well is that I'd agree for it to be mostly about Jews, though I do think it should be a lot broader than it is right now. It's just wrong on so many levels - as in, the article how it is right now. 2A00:F41:5849:DF29:54D3:86A7:28E1:33C4 (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea of the history of this article but agree that the scope/framing/definition ought to not inadvertently diminish the range of victims (nor the impact on any particular group of victims).

I actually came to the Talk page, not knowing this was a live discussion, to note that regardless of eventual decision on this topic there are currently dead links in the lead section which result in information on many persecuted groups being neither in this article nor immediately reachable from it.

The last paragraph of the lead links to what presumably used to be sections of this article (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#Political_and_religious_opponents) that do not currently exist, except for #Roma. (Roma is currently the only subsection under "Other victims of Nazi persecution" which regardless of opinion on the matter of what does or doesn't constitute "Holocaust victim", is simply inaccurate).

I recommend that while discussion over this specific page is live, these links are re-assigned to existing relevant pages (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_homosexuals_in_Nazi_Germany) to ensure relevant information is still reachable by readers. Would do this myself but the page is protected!

PS - similar note to Chrisludw's, I am also a relatively new & infrequent editor! FruitCrumble (talk) 16:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The links have been fixed. As noted in edit summaries, content has not been removed but rather placed in other parts of the article where it is relevant. For example, information on anti-Polish persecutions and euthanasia killings can be found in the #Invasion of Poland section of the article. This is in line with the approach that reliable sources take to discussing the topic. (t · c) buidhe 21:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Article scope redux

I realize this is a subject that gets raised over and over again at this talk page. Editors have decided, based on the preponderance of reliable sources, that the primary topic of "the Holocaust" is the genocide of Jews, rather than being inclusive of all victims of Nazi persecution. Unfortunately, the article itself muddles its own topic and tries to have it both ways.

My concrete proposal is to remove the section "Other victims of Nazi persecution" and instead add a hatnote as follows:

This article is about the genocide of Jews. For other groups of victims, see Mass killings by Nazi Germany.

This scope and title of the proposed new article are inspired by the new book Empire of Destruction: A History of Nazi Mass Killing by Alex J. Kay. It would be a broad concept article that covers this article but also anti-partisan warfare, Romani genocide, nazi-induced famines, German mistreatment of Soviet prisoners of war, murder of political opponents, persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany, etc.

I will start the article if the reception is positive. (t · c) buidhe 09:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

 Doing... (t · c) buidhe 03:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I have redirected the stub back to this article for now. I can understand WP:BOLD edits, but please slow down; this is one of the most controversial and sensitive topics in the entire encyclopedia. Performing a split like that after a mere two days with no input from anyone else is bold to the point of being nearly reckless. And, at the very least, you said you would only proceed if the reception is positive; now you have gotten a response that is uniformly opposed to your changes. --Aquillion (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Woah, I am just now seeing this. Please see my comment above. Where is a decision documented, to limit the scope of this article? I cannot object to that emphatically enough, and will collect whatever scholars I might need to, to support such an objection. Ninavizz (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Please see Talk:The Holocaust/FAQ or search the talk page history where you can find dozens of threads on this exact question.

I can actually see both sides of this argument, because you could argue that the common usage of "Holocaust" is often broader, but most RS do not agree and neither has longstanding consensus on this talk page. The main issue from my perspective is either that we have "The Holocaust" and "Mass killings by Nazi Germany" or "The Holocaust" and "genocide of Jews during World War II" without trying to cover both in one article, which is impossible to achieve while following Wikipedia policies on article length and balance. (t · c) buidhe 19:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Mathglot wrote the FAQ so quite possibly they have knowledge of specific discussions that this consensus is based on. (t · c) buidhe 19:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your boldness, but I firmly believe such matters should first achieve a consensus before being removed, especially if there is not article but a day old stub covering them in a much less exhaustive manner. At least keep those additions until the article you created is sufficiently built up. I'm sorry I didn't voice any objections sooner. Best regards. Andro611 (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

This mass removal is totally inappropriate with so little feedback or consensus. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Strenuous disagreement with the argument that the killing of disabled people, Roma, LGBT people, etc. is outside of the article scope. While we may have an agreement to use the killing of Jews as the primary definition in the lead and for the main number at the top of the article based on the way the term is used in the preponderance of presented sources, it is by no means a WP:FRINGE perspective to include those things under that topic; it has substantial representation among high-quality academic sources, which means that they cannot be excluded entirely. The gap between establishing "this is the primary definition" and "all other definitions are so marginal that they cannot be mentioned or referenced anywhere in the article at all" is huge. --Aquillion (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  As I stated above I'm not strongly opposed to changing the article scope to being about all mass killings by Nazi Germany. However, if we do that the article would need a far more dramatic rewrite than culling content that is not within the current article scope focusing on the genocide of Jews. We would need to reduce the content about Jews to a bit less than half the article content and change the intro of the article to say around 13–14 million deaths resulting from deliberate Nazi mass killing practices, of whom a bit less than half were Jews. (t · c) buidhe 20:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Would it? I'm not sure. There's no real contradiction in saying, and having the article reflect, that the primary usage is to refer to the Nazi genocide of the Jews, while acknowledging that there is also minority (but one clearly significant enough to be covered in this article) that includes other systematic killings by Nazi Germany. Therefore it would be appropriate for the bulk of the article to be about the genocide of the Jews, while also mentioning other aspects that are referenced in some sources to a lesser degree. WP:DUE does not require that we split things perfectly evenly; it's about having our coverage reflect the balance of the sources. (As I mentioned, my perception is that previous disputes focused primarily on the number in the infobox and the summary in the lead - places where it is hard to put that kind of nuance. But we can have it further down the article.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

If we're dealing with two usages of the same term "Holocaust" to mean either:

1. The genocide of Jews during World War II
2. A variety of mass killings committed by Nazi Germany, of whom about half the victims were Jews

The canonical way that Wikipedia deals with multiple different uses of a term is with disambiguation, not by covering both in one article. At present, I feel the article does a disservice to millions of non-Jewish victims of Nazi mass killing practices, if you count them as part of the article scope and oppose a dedicated article that covers the second meaning. I don't believe it is possible to fairly cover both topics in the same article. (t · c) buidhe 20:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Aquillion, I'm still interested in your thoughts on this. Wouldn't you agree that if the non-Jewish victims are counted within the scope of this article, this should be made clear in the lead (the article scope should be clear from the lead, per MOS:LEAD, and all important aspects should be summarized in the lead)? And if they aren't, then I don't understand why you would oppose a separate article that covers all mass killings by Nazi Germany proportionate to coverage in reliable sources and removal of content that is not within the scope of this article. As it is, this article seems like the non-Jewish victims are tacked on as an afterthought. (t · c) buidhe 23:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Since this discussion seems to have petered out, perhaps we need a broader discussion to clarify the scope after all. Because if some editors seem to think the scope is a superposition of two different things, or the article lead has a different scope than the body, I do not think that such a local consensus is compliant with overall Wikipedia article scope policies. Ealdgyth, what do you think? (t · c) buidhe 01:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm in agreement with the proposed scope, and the coverage in the other crimes against humanity / mass murder in general in the separate article. Per USHMM, INTRODUCTION TO THE HOLOCAUST: The Holocaust was the systematic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million European Jews by the Nazi German regime and its allies and collaborators. The Holocaust was an evolving process that took place throughout Europe between 1933 and 1945. Source. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
• My personal opinion (i.e. if I was going to write a book on the subject) is that the term "The Holocaust" should be used only for the genocide of Jews during WWII. Unfortunately, there are enough other sources out there that include other groups in the definition, that I don't think we can totally exclude them from this article - a good overview is Niewyk & Nocosia The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust part two, the chapter entitled "Defining the Holocaust". I'm not going to cry if someone edits the article and changes the definition and makes it stick, but I don't think it's going to stick. A review of the various discussions in the talk page archives might be best before setting out to do that. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  Ealdgyth Thanks for your comment. I am not sure that trying to cover multiple uses of the word "Holocaust" in one article is going to lead to good results. How do you suggest that the ambiguity is handled? Mentioning non-Jewish victims when they were targeted alongside Jews, for example killings of Romani people in mass shootings and extermination camps, "anti-partisan" warfare directed at actual partisans, the civilian population in general and Jews in particular? That would be my preferred approach regardless of how we define the article scope exactly. A specific section that addresses non-Jewish victims (I don't think this is ideal, because it leads to segregation of related content, eg. in the examples above)? Do you support or oppose the creation of a separate article that covers all victims of Nazi persecution such as Mass killings by Nazi Germany? (t · c) buidhe 19:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  You know, I'm busy. I read your initial postings (which this last reply basically repeats) and I made my opinion known so repeating it again in an effort to get me to opine further isn't really helpful and given how busy I am, just annoys me. (Granted, I'm trying to work on some stuff outside wiki and getting pinged to this discussion (twice!) is just ... frustrating. Oh, yeah, and on top of the lovely arbcom case I got dragged into... that was fun and ate up most of my wiki time for a while. So if I sound testy, its because I am. I'm not sure why I was singled out for a ping originally, and I carved out time for a reply, only to get pinged back again after I thought I'd made it clear I don't favor either option.) Life isn't always black and white and there isn't a good solution given the fact that the historians who study the subject have differing views. Sometimes things won't work out to the "perfect" solution. And there's a lot of folks who have opined in the past on this exact subject - please read the talk page archives, if you haven't. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

My impression (which may be wrong) is that (i) a majority view is that the Holocaust was a genocide of Jews, and (ii) a significant minority view is that it included mass killing of several other categories. In connection to that, the article's structure in its present form ("the major part" and "other categories") seems quite adequate: we cannot remove the information about extermination of some categories of gentile population completely, because some sources (although definitely not a majority of them) combine these events.

I agree that we should probably discuss relative size of each part, and, maybe, remove some less important information. What should definitely be avoided is a dilution of a story of the genocide of Jews with other facts when it is done within the same section/subsection. However, that is not what we have right now. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• I think the hatnote, as proposed by Buidhe, is a great idea because it will be a service to the reader to direct them to related content. People may want to learn about these other mass killings. They might not know the full extent. We should help educate the reader. It will not serve the reader to turn this article into a bloated mess about many different topics. There's too much to include it all here. I do think it is important context to make people aware that they Jews were a primary target, but not the only target. We can briefly identify the other groups that were targeted for extermination and link out to those articles. Jehochman ^Talk 21:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Removal of UNDUE content

This article needs to be shortened to give readers a concise summary of the topic and to meet Wikipedia guidelines for article length. In addition, there are prominent aspects of the Holocaust that are not currently present in the article.

Nazi human experimentation has its own article and as stated in the edit summary affected only an infintestimal proportion of Holocaust victims, while many experimentation victims were not Jewish. A quick persual of the high quality, recent sources listed at the top of this talk page shows that giving it a unique section is clearly undue weight compared to the coverage in these sources. (t · c) buidhe 03:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking we need to roll back to before all of your changes; there wasn't even a hit of consensus for such a massive excision. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no requirement to seek consensus before editing an article. Where is the consensus that this content belongs in the article? (relevant per WP:ONUS. (t · c) buidhe 19:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

No requirement. But common sense dictates that massive changes should have massive discussion. Otherwise, you get exactly what's happening: serious objection. Anyway, the R part of WP:BRD has certainly happened. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Please provide reasoned arguments here against any of the edits I made that are compliant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There is no reason to have a bias in favor of the article's status quo, when it is not compliant with the policies and guidelines and is poorly written and organized. (t · c) buidhe 19:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

You lacked WP:CONSENSUS. That's guideline enough for opposing such a massive change on such an important article. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is, since bold editing has always been allowed on Wikipedia. I'm willing to discuss any of my edits on their merits, but not the idea that it is wrong to make dramatic improvements to Wikipedia articles in a short time frame. (t · c) buidhe 19:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

In the interest of focusing on specific content, please use the following sections to discuss: (t · c) buidhe 19:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Nazi human experimentation

[1] Nazi human experimentation has its own article and as stated in the edit summary affected only an infintestimal proportion of Holocaust victims, while many experimentation victims were not Jewish. A quick persual of the high quality, recent sources listed at the top of this talk page shows that giving it a unique section is clearly undue weight compared to the coverage in these sources. (t · c) buidhe 03:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"Disabled people" section

[2] Aktion T4 is not part of the article scope (see above discussions). (t · c) buidhe 19:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

See my comments above; I oppose these removals, and the reasoning behind them, in strongest possible terms. Previous discussions only focused on the primary definition in the lead and the figure used in the infobox (which is, after all, a place where we have little room for nuance.) "This is the primary definition of the Holocaust" is vastly different from "this is the only definition of the Holocaust; or all other definitions are so marginal and WP:FRINGE that we cannot include anything about them regardless of the individual strength of the sources." --Aquillion (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

See my reply to your comment above. (t · c) buidhe 20:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"Distinctive features" section

[3] These features don't actually distinguish the Holocaust from other genocides and the paragraph is extra confusing to readers, because many of the statements in this paragraph apply only to German Jews and not Holocaust victims from other countries. Additionally, most Wikipedia articles about historical topics start with a background section because it is confusing to readers to put historiographical debates (such as comparison with other genocides) before giving them the main information on the event itself. (t · c) buidhe 19:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Causes of varying mortality rates

[4] Scholars have identified many factors that impacted survival rates, such as assimilation of the Jewish community, geography, attitudes of local non-Jews, and opportunities to emigrate before the killing began. To not even mention these and just cover in depth the theory that credits it entirely to state existence—without even mentioning the obvious counter-examples such as Slovakia—is obviously POV. (t · c) buidhe 05:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Duplication of information on deaths per country

[5] If there is going to be a table that lists deaths per country, there is no need to duplicate this information in prose. It would be worthwhile to add a couple sentences on *why* the death rate varied, but just giving non-contexualized figures is not very informative. (t · c) buidhe 06:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I added the percentages, which is not in the table. Please leave it alone. Dovidroth (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

If you think the percentages is essential information (although it is already implicitly there, since the table lists the prewar population and deaths), then it could be added as a column in the table. (t · c) buidhe 06:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Then go ahead and add it to the table. There was an explanation regarding deaths per country but you didn't like it. Dovidroth (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

More balanced explanations regarding deaths per country have been added. Additionally, I have noticed some factual errors / failed verification with your text. The source only lists the 1939 (or other years) Jewish population, and the number of deaths. It does not say, for example, that 25 percent of French Jews died in the Holocaust. In fact, most victims of the Holocaust in France were not French Jews, but residents of France with foreign citizenship. This is a reason why trying to paraphrase a table is not always a good idea. (t · c) buidhe 06:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

North African Jews

Essay introduction and infobox written Genocide of European Jews while North African Jews were also killed in the Holocaust. Parham wiki (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's a good article in Yad Vashem about the Jews of North Africa. The actual number of deaths was in the range of 1000, according to this article. ... If Holocaust means mass murder, then a “Holocaust” did not occur in North Africa. The history of the Jews in this period should correctly be discussed under the threat of a looming Holocaust which did not materialize. However, if what we mean by the Holocaust also includes the series of stages that (in Europe) preceded actual mass murder – e.g., concentrating the Jews in specific areas, stripping the Jews of their professions, despoiling the Jews of their property and material wealth, and depriving the Jews of their liberty by sending them to labor and other camps, then …. we are face to face with the looming Holocaust in its preliminary stages with all the considerable suffering involved. I think a paragraph or two about this would be a useful addition. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 13:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree Parham wiki (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

So write it. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I can't because the editing of the article is protected and I am not allowed to edit it. Parham wiki (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

So I suggest writing a few paragraphs in your sandbox. Then come back here and tell us about it. I'm now rather interested in the topic. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done

Parham wiki (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately the content in the sandbox was a copyvio and has now been deleted.

A mention of North African Jews is worth making, but I think a paragraph would likely be WP:UNDUE. More information can be found in the article Jews outside Europe under Axis occupation (which is in terrible shape, tbh). (t · c) buidhe 18:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2023

In this phrase:

In December 1942, the United Nations adopted a joint declaration condemning the systematic murder of Jews.

the words "United Nations" are linked to United Nations. This organisation didn't exist until 1945. As you can see at United Nations (disambiguation), the Allies of World War II were frequently known as the "United Nations" at the time.

With this in mind, please change [[United Nations]] to [[Allies of World War II|United Nations]]. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done (t · c) buidhe 01:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Quantifying Holocaust denial and distortion online

A study conducted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 2021 showed that out of 1,028 pieces of content o Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Telegram and TikTok, 16.4 % either denied or distorted the history of the Holocaust. Figure 3 compares the proportion of content on each platform containing themes of Holocaust denial or distortion. On Facebook 8% of the content related to the Holocaust either denies or distorts it. That’s 3% of the Holocaust related content on Instagram, 49% on Telegram, 17% on TikTok and 19% on Twitter.

Distribution of 1,028 pieces of Holocaust content across five online plattforms, and the proportion (to the left of the white line) that denied or distorted history

While on some platforms (such as Facebook and Instagram), the proportions are relatively small, they are nevertheless significant in light of the enormous volume of content that is published on these platforms. Furthermore, the proportion of Holocaust denial and distortion may be underestimated on image-reliant platforms such as Instagram that rely on using CrowdTangle to research hashtags and keywords. This methodology does not identify these terms if they are represented in the image alone.

Secondly, across three of the platforms reviewed (Telegram, Twitter and TikTok), the proportion of Holocaust denial and distortion is relatively large – indeed on Telegram it approaches 50 per cent of the content reviewed. On this platform in particular, users who are looking for accurate and reliable content on that period in history have a high chance of encountering material that denies or distorts the Holocaust.

Holocaust denial and distortion are an issue in all the languages in question. Each platform, however, reveals different patterns. Facebook had comparable amounts of denial and distortion content in German, English and French, but none in Spanish. On Instagram, the small amount of Holocaust denial and distortion found was almost exclusively in English. On Telegram, all languages showed a high prevalence but German was particularly striking, with over 80 per cent of all German language content reviewed either denying or distorting the Holocaust. This chimes with other research claiming that German-language Telegram hosts conspiracy theories and misinformation, which is especially concerning as the number of German-language Telegram users continues to increase. On TikTok, French was the language that contained most denial and distortion. This was partly driven by the popularity of antisemitic French comic Dieudonné on the platform. On Twitter, the significant amount of problematic content was relatively equal across all languages. While no content relating to denial or distortion was found in Spanish on Facebook or in French on Instagram, this does not mean that Holocaust denial and distortion are nonexistent on online platforms in these languages. Considering that only approximately 200 pieces of content were reviewed per language for each platform over a period of about a week through a keyword search, it is not necessarily the case that there is no content that denies and distorts the Holocaust in these languages, but simply that the prevalence of this content is too low to be uncovered in a small sample. Other studies, such as the Anti-Defamation League’s report, “Holocuento y otras mentiras”: El antisemitismo en español en Facebook [“The Holohoax and other lies”: Antisemitism in Spanish on Facebook], suggest that moderation is actually a lot less effective on non-English content.

---

Lisa Rechelle (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

This content might be relevant for the Holocaust denial article. (t · c) buidhe 18:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 May 2023

The first 3-4 paragraphs of this article identify the Holocaust as only the murder of Jews. But let's be clear, the Nazis first came for leftists--communists, socialists, trade unionists. And the Holocaust included the decimation of many minorities and other ethnicities in the region--the Polish, Russians, etc. The current iteration on Wikipedia is SHOCKINGLY misleading. 76.37.232.1 (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Read this talk page, or the article Cannolis (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 May 2023 (2)

The lead should be updated this should be replaced,

Besides the Jews, Germany and its collaborators persecuted and murdered millions of others, including Poles, Soviet prisoners of war, the Roma, the disabled, political and religious dissidents, and gay men.

with what Buidhe put in the death toll section,

Historian Alex J. Kay estimates that including Jewish Holocaust victims, around 13 million people died as a result of Nazi mass killings, including "300,000 mentally and physically disabled people, up to 100,000 members of the Polish ruling classes and elites... 200,000 European Roma, at least 2 million residents of Soviet cities, up to 3.3 million Soviet POWs, around 1 million unarmed civilians in primarily rural areas during preventive terror operations and reprisals in the occupied territories (even after accounting for actual partisans among the dead), and another 185,000 civilian residents of Warsaw".[348]

As that source is 1 year old and not more then 10 years old. Are you going to update that @Buidhe:? Dan white 76 (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I plan to make a similar edit. Although ideally the wording would be condensed somewhat because the lead is a summary. (t · c) buidhe 22:23, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 Working (t · c) buidhe 01:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Holocaust and rape

During my work on another article, I found something unexpected. It is generally believed that due to the Nazi racial laws any sexual contacts between Germans and Jews were strictly prohibited, so the mass murder of Jews, as a rule, was not accompanied by mass rapes. However, in this detailed study, the author states that whereas consensual sexual contacts between Germans and Jews (and only within the borders of the Reich) were considered a violation of racial laws, rape or other forms of sexual abuse and humiliation were not prohibited. The situation was especially terrible in the occupied Eastern Europe.

Using numerous documents and testimonies, the author demonstrates that mass rape and various forms of sexual violence were the essential component of deportation and execution of Jews. I think we may consider incorporation of this information into the article. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The race defilement laws simply weren't enforced when it came to rape of Jews by non-Jews. It is probably worth a mention somewhere in this article since sexual violence was well known to occur, as well as deliberately trading sex for survival. (t · c) buidhe 05:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781138347762-52/sexuality-holocaust-anna-h%C3%A1jkov%C3%A1 (t · c) buidhe 05:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

"rape or other forms of sexual abuse and humiliation were not prohibited." You have got to be kidding, that was news to you? Have you bothered to check the articles on wartime sexual violence and Jewish sexual violence during the Holocaust? Because it is certainly not news to Wikipedia editors:

• • "While the Nuremberg Tribunals failed to charge Nazi war criminals with rape, witnesses testified about it occurring. Several of the victims who faced sexual violence during the Holocaust were Jewish men and women."
  • "Rapes were committed by Wehrmacht forces on Jewish women and girls during the Invasion of Poland in September 1939; they were also committed against Polish, Ukrainian, Belarusian and Russian women and girls during mass executions which were primarily carried out by the Selbstschutz units, with the assistance of Wehrmacht soldiers who were stationed in territory that was under the administration of the German military; the rapes were committed against female captives before they were shot. Only one case of rape was prosecuted by a German court during the military campaign in Poland, and even then the German judge found the perpetrator guilty of Rassenschande (committing a shameful act against his race as defined by the racial policy of Nazi Germany), rather than rape. Jewish women were particularly vulnerable to rape during The Holocaust."
  • "Rapes were also committed by German forces stationed on the Eastern Front, where they were largely unpunished (as opposed to rapes committed in Western Europe); the overall number of rapes is difficult to establish due to the lack of prosecutions of the crime by German courts. The Wehrmacht also established a system of military brothels, in which young women and girls from occupied territories were forced into prostitution under harsh conditions. In the Soviet Union women were kidnapped by German forces for prostitution as well; one report by the International Military Tribunal writes "in the city of Smolensk the German Command opened a brothel for officers in one of the hotels into which hundreds of women and girls were driven; they were mercilessly dragged down the street by their arms and hair." "
  • "During World War II, some Jewish men and women in concentration camps faced sexual violence, due to wartime discrimination, antisemitism, and genocidal conditions among other reasons. This discrimination happened both inside concentration camps run by Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime and also outside of the camps. This sexual violence and discrimination happened not only in Germany but throughout Europe in areas that the Germans occupied during the war. Outside of concentration camps, sexual violence happened in many places, including but not limited to Jewish people's homes, Jewish hiding spaces, in public, and at killing sites." Dimadick (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

  I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about the history of WWII, and the very fact that I am asking this question is an indication that a stereotype exists in many sources about scarcity of rapes committed by German military (and racial laws are frequently cited as a reason). If the fact about mass rapes is a news for me, then I have a reason to suspect that that fact is not obvious to an ordinary reader too. Maybe, that is an additional reason for allocating some space for that story in this article. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

Why was Template:Infobox civilian attack removed? We the infobox on articles about several other genocides (i. e. California genocide, Circassian genocide, Armenian genocide, Rwandan genocide). CJ-Moki (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of infoboxes (whether on this article, the Armenian genocide one, or for similar topics), but I've restored it upon request. (t · c) buidhe 05:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The Holocaust

this latest rewrite is totally bellitling the effect of the Holocaust in Europe in WW2 Did it not happen in the Baltics and Eastern Europe? It does not explain the Holocaust country by country or its effects I am personally disappointed with this latest version I wont be back to use oy as a point of reference or research. 82.132.184.31 (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Why don't you just go to the individual articles for detail? This article is an overview. See Category:The_Holocaust_by_country, so for example if you want to read about The Holocaust in Latvia or The Holocaust in Poland you will find more detail there. Antandrus (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Holocaust/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Borsoka (talk · contribs) 12:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

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):

   An exceptionally well written, clear and concise article.

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

   It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   The article contains a list of all references. Source formatting is consistent and all information necessary to identify the cited source is there.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   All citations are from hiqh-quality reliable sources.

   c. (OR):

   Each statement is verified by a reference to a scholarly work. I checked references 91, 131, 212, and 397.

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   No example of plagiarism or copyvio was detected in the checked references.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

   Perhaps some information about the non-Jewish victims of WWII could be described as superfluous in the article's context but in such a sensitive area we could hardly achieve a consensual presentation without mentioning them.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   An exemplarily neutral and fair presentation of an emotionally exceptionally demanding subject.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The article received extended confirmed protection which prevents new users from edit warring but its history and Talk page show that reverts may occur. However, these reverts have not developed into edit warring and the article's Talk page indicates that most editors of the article are willing to reach a compromise. Borsoka (talk) 12:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

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

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   All images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales.

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

A highly sensitive theme that requires much attention. I planning to complete the review in a week. I have one preliminary question: why are not Zionism, the establishment of the State of Israel and Holocaust denial mentioned in the article? Borsoka (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Holocaust denial does not dominate discussions of the legacy of the Holocaust the way the state-led denial of the Armenian genocide does. I was surprised how few sources I consulted when writing this section even mentioned it. Kansteiner does mention Holocaust denial but suggests it is a marginal phenomenon. However, I'm not opposed to a brief mention. As for Zionism and Israel, they are already mentioned although perhaps coverage could be expanded and/or improved. Thanks so much for taking on this review. (t · c) buidhe 16:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

• I am also thinking of a very brief mention. I will return to my preliminary question after completing the overall review. Excellent article. Thank you for it.

• ...a Greek word meaning "burnt offering"... A reference to the religious connotation of the term? Perhaps a link to Holocaust (sacrifice) or Burnt offering (Judaism)?
  •  Done
• ...was introduced in the 1950s... Do we know by whom (researchers, journalists, clergy...) or where (studies, journals, ...)?
  • The term was popularized for a number of reasons, among those I've read being its use in Night (book), the Eichmann trial, Holocaust (miniseries), and possibly an official policy of the Israeli government. But this detail is not covered in any of the sources currently cited in the article and seems UNDUE. I guess when it was exactly introduced is not so important either.
• By the early twentieth century, most Jews in central and western Europe were well integrated into society, while many Eastern European Jews still lived in small towns, spoke Yiddish, and practiced Orthodox Judaism. Throughout the Middle Ages in Europe, Jews were subjected to antisemitism based on Christian theology, which blamed them for killing Jesus. I would change the sequence of the two sentences and refer to Jewish emancipation.
  • done
• ...was lent a scientific backing by nineteenth-century biologists... No, it has never been lent a scientific backing. It may have been backed by allegedly scientific studies. A reference to Social Darwinism?
  • Rewrote the sentence.
• ...traitors to the countries that they lived in... A reference to the Dreyfus affair in a footnote?
  • I'd rather take out this clause than add a footnote, since the Dreyfus affair is not actually mentioned in the sources.
• A reference to the survival/revival of pre-modern popular anti-Semitic concepts like the blood libel, and a reference to the early 20th-century progroms in Eastern Europe?
  • Done for the second one. Blood libel isn't mentioned in most of the sources.
• A reference to the mass immigration to the Eastern European Jews to Austria-Hungary? As far as I can remember Hitler wrote that he became convinced that the Jews form a separate race when he first met the "Galizianer" community in Vienna.
  • Mentioned the composition of the German Jews.
• ... right-wing political parties... The cited source names parties and movements but does not mention the Völkisch movement (that is linked). Perhaps some parties and movements could be mentioned in a footnote. I think the Völkisch movement should also be mentioned.
  • Removed link.

• • The cited source also names movements. Borsoka (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
    • I checked some other sources and rewrote the sentence based on those. (t · c) buidhe 17:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• The turn of the twentieth century also saw a major effort to establish a German colonial empire overseas, including the Herero and Nama genocide and subsequent racial apartheid regime in South West Africa. Perhaps this is a consequence of a language barrier, but for me the major effort to establish a colonial empire does not include the genocide and the apartheid regime, but led to them.
  • Changed to "leading to".
• ... its ideology is often cited as the main factor to explain the Holocaus By whom? What are the other main factors that are often cited?
  • Gerlach cites Yehuda Bauer specifically as someone who holds this view, but I'm not sure it would be helpful to the reader to mention Bauer since I believe, and Gerlach states, that this is a common interpretation. Other factors (for example, more contingent and war-related reasons) are discussed later in the article.
• Nazi ideas of race and empire were developed from earlier ones... Some examples in a footnote or a link?
  • Actually, the linked articles Volksgemeinschaft and Lebensraum detail their pre-Nazi origins and/or precursors.
    • I would name some of the earlier ideas because the sentence is unspecific: "X ideas of Y and Z were developed from earlier ones..." is a valid statement in any context.
      • If you don't think it's a meaningful statement, I've removed it. (t · c) buidhe 08:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
• ...these ideas appealed to many Germans. Why?
  • As previously stated the Nazis beliefs were developed from earlier ones that already had considerable appeal in Germany. Dan Stone writes that many Germans liked the idea of national renewal according to the Volksgemeinschaft idea, subscribed to antisemitic conspiracy theories, and/or were imperialist.

• • I miss a reference to the social consequences of the Great Depression. All studies I have so far read about the rise of Nazi Germany emphasize the especially devastating economical and social effects of the Great Depression in Germany.
    • Added mention. (t · c) buidhe 08:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• ...especially communists..., ...most Jews were not communists... Why not Communists?
  • Communist should not be capitalized except when referring to a specific communist party per MOS:IDEOLOGY.
• ...eventually 400,000 people were sterilized—primarily on the basis of feeblemindedness, schizophrenia, or epilepsy—and others subjected to forced abortion I assume the same groups of people were sterilized or forced to abortion. Consider linking Compulsory sterilization.
  • Compulsory sterilization is already linked. Rewrote sentence.
• ...the Nazis sought to control every aspect of public and private life... Consider linking Totalitarianism.
  • I'm reluctant to do so because of the recent historians such as Stone or Robert Gellately who argue that Nazi Germany was not "totalitarian" to most Germans.
• ...state-led measures... Consider linking Economy of Nazi Germany.
  • Done
• Who were the Jews according to the Nuremberg Laws? I think it should also be mentioned that tens of thousands of people who had no real Jewish (cultural) background was proclaimed Jewish based on "race".
  • Done

• • The cited source writes of full Jews and "Mischlinge". I think this differentiation should be mentioned because "Mischlinge" were treated as Jews in occupied Eastern Europe.

• How many people were defined as Jews by the Nuremberg Laws? What was their ratio in the population of Germany? How many among them adhered to Judaism?
  • Added background information to the Background section
• ...restricted Jews' economic activity..., ...they were barred from additional occupations... Examples in footnotes?
  • Added this information to The Holocaust in Germany and linked.
• ...their businesses were expropriated... All Jewish businesses were expropriated at this time?
  • Yes, according to Longerich all businesses owned by German Jews were closed or Aryanized in 1938.
• I would name (not only link) the Kristallnacht somwhere in the article.
  • Done
• I would mention (not only link) Mandatory Palestine instead of Palestine.
  • Done
• ...1 billion RM... Reichsmark is not introduced and linked in a previous sentence. Some context (equivalent to ..., X percent of state revenues)?
  • At the time, USD1 = 2.5RM. I could add a currency conversion here?

• • For me, it would be useful for better understanding.
    • Done. (t · c) buidhe 08:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• The section title "Invasion of Poland" does not reflect its text because it also refers to the invasion of western Europe and Scandinavia.
  • Retitled "Start of World War II".
• ...more than two million Jews in the territory it occupied... What percentage of the local population?
  • I've looked for this figure in several sources but cannot find it.
• ...which invaded Poland from the east on 17 September. A reference to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact?
  • Added
• ...contributing to a perception among many non-Jews that Soviet rule was a Jewish conspiracy Not reinforcing? In our region of Central and Eastern Europe, the association of Jews and Communists was quite common already in the early 20th century as many Communist leaders had Jewish background.
  • Rephrased to make it clearer that this is a pre-existing prejudicial belief
• I would mention the consequences of the occupation of Poland (2nd paragraph of section "Invasion of Poland") before mentioning the invasion of western European countries.
  • Done
• Some Jews fled to the Soviet occupation zone..., ... thousands of Jews were expelled into the Soviet occupation zone Repetition? If not, the two sentences should be linked and differentiated.
  • Combined
• Around 50,000 Polish leaders and intellectuals were arrested or executed; the bulk of these victims were from the region of Danzig–West Prussia with fewer in the Wartheland and fewer still in the General Governorate occupation zone. Is this highly relevant in the article's context?
  • It's included mainly because (see discussions above) some editors believe that the article should cover non-Jewish victim groups to some extent.
• By mid-1941 nearly 3 million people had been deported to Germany as forced laborers. I assume they were mainly Poles.
  • Correct, but I removed it here because forced labor of non-Jews is covered later on in the article in the "Forced labor" section.
• Some information about the Jews' fate in occupied western Europe?
  • Done
• The war also provided cover for the secret murder of around 70,000 institutionalized Germans with mental or physical disabilities, mainly with poison gas. Could we say this was the precedent or first experiment of the use of poison gas for the "industrial" extermination of people? I mean in the article's context we need some link between the extermination of people with mental or physical disabilities and the mass execution of Jews. Were they exterminated in special camps/institutions, or at random places?
  • Interestingly I checked several sources and they do not mention that this was the first killing of defenseless people with poison gas. Mentioned the euthanasia centers using poison gas.
• Criticism from Christian institutions... Some examples in a footnote? Criticism or protest? How were the Christian institutions informed about the secret murder of c. 70,000 people?
  • They weren't informed, they found out. However I rewrote as although some sources attributed the halt to organized religion, Cesarani states, “the T-4 action was not suspended primarily because of church protests”
• Many of the personnel involved in these killings and technology... Some examples in a footnote?
  • The obvious technology overlap would be stationary killing centers that used poison gas, but Kay also mentions similarity in misdirection efforts. I'm not it's worth adding a footnote here since the ones that mention the T4/Reinhard overlap don't list names of people involved in both.
• The Nisko Plan... Perhaps "This so-called Nisko Plan", or similar wording for clarification?
  • I think "so-called" would fall afoul of MOS:DOUBT.
• ...due to the opposition of Hans Frank... Why did he oppose it? I assume he was not the example of Nazi humanism.
  • Mentioned his reason for objection.
• The Soviet Union declined a proposal to resettle Jews in Birobidzhan. A proposal by whom? Jews from where?
  • German proposal. It's not clear Jews from where or how many. It is not mentioned in most of the sources so I've removed it.
• These resettlement plans envisioned the deaths of many Jews ... Is "envisioned" the proper term?
  • rephrased
• ...by local initiatives... I assume not by Polish but local Nazi. If I am right, it should be clarified.
  • Done
• However, in many smaller ghettos... Is "however" necessary? Some examples in a footnote?
  • Removed however. Not sure if a footnote would help since this describes the majority of ghettos that existed.
• Many inhabitants of ghettos were forced to work for the occupiers, although these work programs provided subsistence to some ghetto inhabitants and in some cases protected them from deportation. I would delete "although", and begin a new sentence.
  • rewrote

I will continue my review. Borsoka (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Please don’t let the GOCE template on the article stop you @Borsoka while I do the c/e. Given the length of the article and the importance of the article I’m going to take quite a while proof reading. That said, I doubt there are many if any errors. Just small c/e changes mainly. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I did not stop reviewing because of the GOCE template. This is an emotionally and intellectually extremely difficult theme, so I cannot complete the review in one read. Borsoka (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm doing one section at a time, and it gets increasingly difficult to read. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

“There were no facilities leading to a high death rate”. I was just going to add a comma after facilities, but maybe we need to explain what facilities?

Please excuse me here. Not trying to get involved in the review at all, just doing the copyediting but thought I’d raise that — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:10, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This is a perfect place to raise all issues to be clarified. :) Borsoka (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

• Rephrased the "facilities" sentence. (t · c) buidhe 04:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
• ...and at least 17,000 in the Soviet Union. Germany invades the Soviet Union only in the following section.
  • That's true. Now I've avoided any mention of the non-German victims of "euthanasia" killings. After all, if Kay is right these were motivated by different reasons than Aktion T4.
• The vast majority of civilian victims were Jews. Could you provide numbers?
• ... some in the senior Nazi leadership voiced doubts about killing German Jews Could you name some of them? Why did they oppose the murder of German Jews?
• ...Baltic States... No states existed in the Baltic.
  • Changed to Baltics
• Introduce Odilo Globocnik and Schmelt Organization.
  • Done
• This action reportedly reduced the black market... Some context? This is the first time the black market is mentioned so it should be linked here (not in section "Liquidation of the ghettos in Poland").
• ...including indirect participation the number rises to 500,000 Examples of indirect participation?
  • All Kay says about this figure is "If we consider all those who exercised functions of one sort or another in the machinery of annihilation, the total rises to more than 500,000 people for the Holocaust alone; many more were involved in policies of mass murder targeting other victim groups". The footnote is

    For the figure of between 200,000 and 250,000, see Dieter Pohl, Holocaust. Die Ursachen, das Geschehen, die Folgen (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2000), p. 124; Wendy Lower, Hi t l e r ’s Furies: German Women in the Nazi Killing Fields (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2013), p. 244, n. 154. For the figure of more than 500,000, see Konrad Kwiet, ‘Rassenpolitik und Völkermord’, in Wolfgang Benz, Hermann Graml and Hermann Weiß, eds, Enzyklopädie des Nationalsozialismus (Munich: dtv, 2001 [1997]), pp. 50–65, here p. 62

    I do not currently have access to Kweit 1997/2001 to find out more about where this estimate comes from. (t · c) buidhe 04:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• • My concern is that the adjective "indirect" is too loose. I would rather paraphrase or quote the following text: "all those who exercised functions of one sort or another in the machinery of annihilation".
    • Done (t · c) buidhe 00:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

• Non-German perpetrators and collaborators included... I may not understand the context, but I am pretty sure that Hungarian, Croatian, Bulgarian officers were also actively involved in the genocide.
  • Yes, however the list that's currently there closely follows the cited sources and non-German state perpetration is arguably already covered in the third paragraph of "Deportations from elsewhere" and the second paragraph of "Continuing killings". I could add a sentence here for state participation but I'm not sure what to write for non-redundancy. (t · c) buidhe 17:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I will continue the review later. Borsoka (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

• I know that I compulsively insist on chronology but the chronology of section "Forced labor" is especially disturbing for me.
  • Reordered to put non-Jewish forced labor last.
• The distinction between concentration camps and forced labor camps or extermination camp is unclear. I assume both forced labor camps and extermination camps are concentration camps but I am not sure.
  • I have added a footnote to clarify.
• An even larger number of people were forced to work for the occupiers... Could the sentence be more specific by adding an estimation?
  • Gerlach states that this was true in France, Greece, and the Soviet Union. He states that at the end of 1942, close to 22 million people were employed in the Soviet Union compared to 3 million Soviet citizens who were deported to Greater Germany. Unfortunately, it is not clear if this figure includes voluntary laborers.
    • I would prefer the original wording (quoted above) to the new text. The original wording adds a relative range. Borsoka (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
      • I changed it because while Gerlach strongly suggests it, I'm not sure he says it outright and I want to avoid any failed verification issue. Spoerer (pp. 137–138) suggests that the definition of forced labor might be decisive. I have looked for other sources but haven't been able to find a citable source that states this. (t · c) buidhe 23:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
• In some of Germany's allies... Could you list them or mention some of them?
  • Done
• ...especially in Greater Germany... I assume this is a reference to the newly acquired territories. If I am right, this should be clarified; if I am wrong (and it is a reference to the whole territory of Germany) the text should be deleted.
  • Rewrote
• ...some of the forced-labor camps for Jews and some ghettos were converted into concentration camps... Could you provide some examples?
  • Some of the forced labor camp systems were split with some of them being designated KZ/KLs and others shut down; the Schmelt camps in Silesia being a prominent example. I have mentioned the Kovno ghetto as one that was designated a KZ/KL.
• ...inside the camp system... I assume "inside the forced labor camp system".
  • Rephrased
• ...a non-Jewish appearance... For me, this text is close to racism. Could a reference to stereotypes be made?
  • The source doesn't mention stereotypes. "Usually mentioned [characteristics important for survival] are non-Jewish looks, good relations with non-Jews and unaccented command of the majority language." From my American perspective, I wouldn't say it's racist to suggest that people of different ethnic backgrounds could have different appearance.
• The Polish government-in-exile's response to the Holocaust has polarized historiography, with some historians arguing that it did more than any other Allied government and others criticizing perceived indifference to the Jewish plight. What was the response?
  • I don't think there is enough space to elaborate the nuances of this response so I've removed the sentence.
• Introduce the Joint Distribution Commitee.
  • Done
• ...it was banned from sending relief into German-occupied Europe... By whom?
  • Done
• ...on death marches... Could this term be explained? (In our region, it is a well known term, but I am not sure that billions of people all over the world understand it without an explanation.)
  • Done
• ...the Arrow Cross... Perhaps "the Hungarian Arrow Cross"?
  • Done
• Is "urbanite" an encyclopedic term?
  • replaced
• Kay argues that all these groups, including Jews, were targeted as part of an actual strategy to win the war, although viewing them as a threat was informed by Nazi racial theory. I am not sure I understand what Kay says.
  • "While each of the killing programmes possessed a racial (and racist) component, the logic of war was central to the rationale for targeting each and every one of the victim groups, for they were regarded by the Nazi regime in one way or another as a potential threat to Germany’s ability to fight and, ultimately, win a war for hegemony in Europe. This view was informed and justified by Nazi racial thinking, so it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate German wartime strategy from Nazi genocidal racial policies." I'm not sure how I could rephrase the sentence to be more clear.
    • I think what you wrote above could be summarized in the article because the sentence is still unclear for me. Borsoka (talk)
      • Attempted to do this. (t · c) buidhe 23:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I will continue the review on Sunday afternoon or Monday morning. Borsoka (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• I did not find a reference to the liberation of the camps only its consequences.
  • Added
• Israel is only tangentially mentioned. I thought that the Holocaust contributed to the strengthening of Zionism among the Jewish population of Europe. Was I wrong?
  • I understand there is a debate as to whether the Holocaust was a decisive or significant factor in founding Israel. This article does not seem to be the place for it. I do think you are right that Zionist attitudes were strengthened as a result, but this isn't covered in the cited sources (even Kochavi), so I'm unsure about WP:DUE. Kochavi does cover that many DPs appeared to support Zionism but offers no indication that this belief was caused by the Holocaust (Zionism was also popular in eastern Europe before World War II). My understanding is also that Israel wasn't the first choice destination of most of the displaced Jews gathered in Germany after the war, and the reason so many of them ended up there can be attributed to immigration restrictions.

• • At FAC, I will probably raise the issue again because I think some statement should be made about the possible connection between the establishment of the State of Israel and Holocaust. From GAN perspective, I do not think this is a grave problem.

• Many perpetrators showed no remorse. Could you provide examples? And also examples of those who showed remorse.
  • Removed
• ...150 billion after accounting for inflation In which year?
  • Fixed
• ... what these lessons are is disputed, Whether Holocaust memory actually promotes human rights is disputed. Could you provide examples in 2-3 sentences? Alternatively, could you link an article? My concern is that we do not have a picture of the debates.
  • Linked Lessons of the Holocaust.
• I may be wrong but I think the following themes are to be covered/mentioned in the article:

• Heroes of the Holocaust/Righteous Among the Nations
• Zionism and the establishment of the State of Israel
• Holocaust in arts
• Holocaust denial Borsoka (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

• For the first point, more of the cited sources discuss the contribution of Holocaust survivors and to memory and commemoration compared to awards for rescuers. Yad Vashem is not currently mentioned in the article at all; is it more significant that the USHMM or many other museums/memorials relating to the Holocaust that are not mentioned? Hard to say in my view.

• I think I will raise the issue again at FAC but for GAN purposes I can accept the present solution.

• See my comment above. My understanding is that this relationship is complex and controversial, which make it difficult to cover concisely.

• Also see my comment above. :)

• For Holocaust in arts, how do you feel about adding the sentence, "The Holocaust-inspired writings of Tadeusz Borowski, Jean Améry, Primo Levi, and others have been described by historian Dan Stone as "among the most remarkable texts of the twentieth century". Alternately I could go with the more bland but possibly more informative, "The Holocaust inspired literary writings from Tadeusz Borowski, Jean Améry, Primo Levi, Imre Kertész, and others, as well as the philosophy of Jacques Derrida, Theodor W. Adorno, and Emmanuel Levinas. (same source).

• I have just realised that there is a link to The Holocaust in the arts and popular culture. The link covers everything that I missed.

• Added a sentence on Holocaust denial. (t · c) buidhe 07:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• Could you add alt text to each picture?
  • Done
• Danzigers cheer for Adolf Hitler 2.jpg: could you refer to the annexation of the city in the caption? (It is unclear why the Danziger are rallying Hitler)
  • Done
• File:Unpaved steet in the Frysztak Ghetto.jpg; File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-134-0771A-39, Polen, Ghetto Warschau, Kind in Lumpen.jpg: could you mention that Frysztak Ghetto and Warsaw Ghetto were in occupied Poland?
  • Done
• File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1994-092-18A, Sowjetunion, Festnahme von Juden.jpg: can the connection between the picture and the quote be verified? Could the quote be attributed to someone in the caption? Could the location be identified in the caption?
  • The location does not have an enwiki article, but I've added it anyway. The quote is provided by Bundesarchiv in the image description: [6]. (t · c) buidhe 07:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• File:Men with an unidentified unit execute a group of Soviet civilians kneeling by the side of a mass grave.jpg: I think this picture could be deleted.
  • Why? We don't have another picture in the article of executions in progress. (t · c) buidhe 07:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
    • You are right. The reference to Soviet civilians misled me.
• File:Przeładunek Żydów do wagonów kolejki wąskotorowej do Chełmna.jpg: link Chełmno extermination camp and mention occupied Poland in the caption.
  • Done
• File:Cumulative murders at Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka from January 1942 to February 1943.jpg: I am not sure that its licencing is valid because the picture does not consist "entirely of information that is common property" but I am not an expert in the field of copyright.
  • The information displayed on any chart is not copyrightable. The design can be but this is a very simple chart. More complex ones have been kept in Commons deletion discussions (see c:Commons:Threshold_of_originality#Charts)
• File:Stroop Report - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising 06c.jpg: I am not sure that this is a representative picture of the uprising. It rather depicts its fall.
  • The main reason this photograph is used is that it's probably the most famous Holocaust photograph that there is. Also, during the uprising only a small number of Jews actually attempted to fight with arms. A far larger number of Warsaw ghetto inhabitants tried to hide like these ones did. None of the other Stroop report photographs show armed conflict in progress although there are some with defeated resistance fighters. Also, we have no other image of Operation Reinhard-related roundups displayed and this is not a bad example.
• File:Stroop Report - Warsaw Ghetto Uprising - 26559.jpg: Reference 3 should be fixed at WikimediaCommons.
  • Done
• File:Selection on the ramp at Auschwitz II-Birkenau, 1944 (Auschwitz Album) 3a.jpg: I would mention Hungary in the caption.
  • Done
• File:Holocaust death rate.svg: the caption is not helpful because the map uses more colours.
  • The map uses much smaller gradations than can be shown in efficiently in a caption. I first tried it with ten rows but I thought the current version was better. Hopefully it is clear that a darker red = greater proportion of deaths.
    • I would make a general statement saying that the deeper red means more victims with the deepest red indicating about 90% death toll.
• File:Jewish displaced persons receive bread rations at the Bindermichl displaced persons' camp in Linz.jpg: could you explain the abbreviation DP? Borsoka (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Done. (t · c) buidhe 07:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your review. (t · c) buidhe 07:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I think there are four pending issues. If the caption at Holocaust death rate is modified in some way, I will probably promote this excellent article. Thank you for completing it. Borsoka (talk) 11:02, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

References

A discussion regarding the scope of the Holocaust has been opened at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard

That discussion may be found here. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Relevant content recently removed (Other victims of Nazi persecution)

I think this content ("Other victims of Nazi persecution" section) was highly relevant and should be restored. The article is weirdly unbalanced in the current version, a search for "Soviet prisoners" shows the death of that group is mentioned in five places; the lead also mentions "Soviet urban residents targeted for mass starvation, rural civilians killed as part of anti-partisan warfare, the mentally and physically disabled, and Romani people". Compare to the previous lead, stable for many years, which stated "the European Jews were targeted for extermination as part of a larger event during the Holocaust era (1933–1945), in which Germany and its collaborators persecuted and murdered millions of others, including ethnic Poles, Soviet civilians and prisoners of war, the Roma, the disabled, political and religious dissidents, and gay men.". Why the article is minimizing the related suffering of other groups (Poles and gays, for example? The linked section also mentioned "Afro-Germans"; linking to Persecution of black people in Nazi Germany - this is just another example of relevant content removed from the article, alongside Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't removed. Relevant content was shifted to other parts of the article where relevant, and the sections on non-Jewish victims were adjusted according to the weight of coverage in reliable sources. For example, the persecution of homosexuals probably cost around 3,000 lives, which is terrible, but it is dwarfed by other murders such as that of Soviet prisoners of war (3+million) and not significantly covered in sources on the Holocaust, so it gets only a brief mention in this article. The various victim groups mentioned follow Kay 2021 (and Gerlach, Longerich, and Cesarani to a lesser extent). Kay's book covers the groups collectively targeted for mass killing with at least tens of thousands dead. (t · c) buidhe 03:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Which parts of the article discuss the persecutions of these groups now? Can you quote them here? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Take a look at paragraph 1 of "Rise of Nazi Germany", paragraphs 1 and 3 of "Start of World War II", paragraphs 1-4 of "Invasion of the Soviet Union", paragraph 3 of "forced labor", paragraph 2 of "Death marches and liberation", and paragraph 2 of "Death toll". There are a few mentions elsewhere in the article, for example of Romani victims of mass shootings and extermination camps. (t · c) buidhe 03:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

As you can see the amount of content was reduced in some cases (for example, persecution of homosexuals or Afro-Germans—who made up a small minority of prewar sterilization victims), but expanded in others (for example, anti-partisan warfare and non-Jewish forced laborers). This is based on the coverage in reliable sources relating to the Holocaust. (t · c) buidhe 04:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Mhm. I think there is some lack of blance in the lead, which mentions Soviet groups twice, but does not mentions Poles. The The_Holocaust#Death_toll is more balanced, mentioning Soviet and Polish groups twice each. Could you modify the lead to mention Poles and Soviet once each? Also, that section numbers seem off compared to the table we have in the lead of Holocaust victims. Right now that section death toll suggests Polish civilian losses were <300,000, where per that table and numerous other sources, they were in the range of 1.8–3 million (not counting Polish Jews, of course). Shouldn't we restructure that section / mention in the lead to correspond to that table there? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC) PS. I don't understand why you reverted this edit by User:Jayen466? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that all war-related civilian deaths are counted as part of a mass killing program. Indeed, there are millions of Soviet civilian deaths that Kay does not classify as mass killing. It is misleading to single out Poles when other groups (such as Belarusians) actually suffered proportionally worse losses. The other problem with the edit was the sources cited. For example, USHMM gives the war-related casualties, but does not attempt to estimate how many of these can be considered mass killing. The insertion suggests that all of them were. As for the rationale for listing certain groups in the list, I simply picked out the largest groups per Kay, page 294 (here he classifies the Warsaw uprising casualties as part of resistance/partisan-related killings). Poles also made up some of the victims of Nazi murder of the disabled, Romani people, and anti-partisan warfare excluding the Warsaw uprising. A mention of the smallest group, "Polish ruling classes and elites" could also be added. Are there other sources that look at all Nazi mass killing practices that calculate them differently? (t · c) buidhe 08:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Considering that the concept of mass killings is not that common (at least based on what I see in that article), I think we should just summarize what is in Holocaust victims. The lead of that article is well referenced and sports a likewise well referenced table, and it is much better than what have in the death toll section. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

In total, Nazi mass killing claimed the lives of around 13 million people, including Soviet prisoners of war, Soviet urban residents targeted for mass starvation, rural civilians killed as part of anti-partisan warfare, the mentally and physically disabled, and Romani people.

This is ugly. Other than the Jews, who were Latvian, Lithuanian, Byelorusian, Ukrainian, politically, the only group singled out for an ethnic denomination are the Romani people. To define the 'rest' in terms of the political status imposed on them briefly by farcical elections ('Soviets'), and not in terms of their ethnic or national roots, as we do with Jews and Romani, is not only extremely pointy, but unaccountably descriminatory. Why not just write:

In total, Nazi mass killing claimed the lives of around 11-13 million people through outright murder, concentration camp killings, deliberate mass starvation and anti-partisan warfare. The victims included Russians, Poles, Ukrainians and Byelorusians, together with homosexuals, the mentally and physically disabled and Romani people. Nishidani (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nishidani: Thank you, I think that would read much better. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I prefer Nishidani's version as well. --Andreas JN466 11:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nishidani Can you reword the lead per your suggestion? I'll also add, to your point about Soviets, that indeed the persecution was more related to ethnicity (Jews, Slavs, etc.) than politics (Soviets/communists). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:46, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't rush this. I have a good deal of respect for the quality of Buidhe's editing and judgment though we have disagreed at times (thank goodness), and would like to hear back on this. And of course, on an article like this, a noticeable lead tweak should reflect a talk page consensus, and were several more established editors who have so far commented on the issue on other pages to chip it, better still. Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The rewording seems good to me, though waiting for further responses seems wise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The issue with the proposed text is that cited sources in the article do recognize that the Nazis killed many Russians, Poles, Belarusians, etc., however they do not support that these people were killed for belonging to these ethnic groups but for more specific reasons. The proposed text is also not a good summary of what the article says about non-Jews targeted by the Nazis as it stands, thus violating MOS:LEAD. If changes are necessary, they should start with close examination of scholarly sources about the Holocaust and change the article content, before we consider changing the lead. Personally, I prefer not to dumb down the article content and instead specifically identify which population groups were targeted and for what reasons. (t · c) buidhe 15:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, as you may be aware one trend in genocide studies is to recognize the targeted groups not by their own self-perception but rather as a group defined by the perpetrators. Indeed, the entire article is based on this premise because people are counted as part of the Holocaust death toll if they were targeted as Jews even if they identified as Christians. I don't think that this is pointy or discriminatory, it simply recognizes the reality that genocides and mass killing policies are not created by their victims but rather their perpetrators.

Anyway, I appreciate the suggestion for the lead, but as it is it does not correspond with the body text. What revisions are you proposing to the body, not just the death toll section, and what Holocaust related scholarship have I overlooked that such edits should be based on? (t · c) buidhe 16:13, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Buidhe: The other day I found this summary of UK school kids' skewed perceptions of the Holocaust, from holocausteducation.org.uk – the UCL Centre for Holocaust Education, part of IOE, University College London’s Faculty of Education and Society. The UCL is a very highly regarded institution, currently ranked number one in the QS World University Rankings, ahead of Harvard. They say:

While Jews, Roma and Sinti, gay men and the disabled were all mentioned by large numbers of students as victims of the Nazis, some other groups were rarely mentioned. We can only speculate on why these groups appear to have all but ‘disappeared from view’, but it seems likely that they are considered somehow less ‘relevant’ to contemporary social issues. Many schools are rightly concerned with homophobia, for example, or the attitudes of society today towards disabled people; perhaps other groups persecuted and murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators have less ‘purchase’ on many teachers’ and students’ concerns with modern British society. Whatever the reason, the outcome is that the murder of up to 15,000 gay men appears to receive a lot of attention in the school classroom, whereas the murder of 3.3 million Soviet POWs seems to be forgotten, and the Nazi genocide of Poles (in which at least 1.8 million non-Jewish Poles were murdered) is barely mentioned. The persecution of political opponents also appears largely overlooked, even though the first concentration camps targeted these victims, and an understanding of this initial period of terror is important in understanding the later development of Nazi violence and genocide. It may be that an over-emphasis on the ‘lessons of the Holocaust’, leads to a particular focus on groups that feel ‘relevant’ to today’s issues, but that this leads – unwittingly – to both a distortion of the past and the forgetting of millions of victims.

Would you please keep that in mind and help make sure that Wikipedia's coverage does not further exacerbate the precise problem they are indicating? Any reader of the current version of the Death toll section is left with the impression that about 285,000 Poles perished, rather than "at least 1.8 million". Regards, Andreas JN466 11:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

We should avoid the tendency to lump too many different things together. The Holocaust is described in (at least) a majority of reliable sources as being exclusively the genocide of the European Jews. We can mention the other mass murders (eg Poles, Slavs, disabled) for context, but they should each be covered thoroughly their own articles. Jehochman ^Talk 15:08, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The point is that the summary and numbers given here should be consistent with scholarship and what we say in these fuller article(s). This article presents the reader with a figure of 285,000 Poles killed, while it is 1.8–3 million in Holocaust victims. The latter range is closer to the ballpark, both according to the auhoritative UK source cited above, and according to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website which says: Calculating the numbers of individuals who were killed as the result of Nazi policies is a difficult task. It is estimated that the Germans killed between 1.8 and 1.9 million non-Jewish Polish civilians during World War II. In addition, the Germans murdered at least 3 million Jewish citizens of Poland. (USHMM Holocaust Encyclopedia, article "Polish victims".) Andreas JN466 15:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding what the article says. The number of non-Jewish Poles counted in the victims of "mass killing" is significantly higher than you have said, because as I wrote above, there were also Poles targeted for being Romani, for their disability, and during rural anti-partisan warfare.

The approach of the article is in keeping with the cited sources. Peer reviewed books and scholarship is generally going to be more reliable than museums or websites, especially those aimed at a general public. For example, Longerich discusses fairly extensively the mass murder of Polish intellectuals and expulsions from Western Poland, however, he neither gives a figure for the total number of war-related deaths among non-Jewish Poles nor suggests that they were targeted for mass killing as a group, as Jews were. (t · c) buidhe 15:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

You're not engaging with the argument, as presented above by the UCL Centre for Holocaust Education.

Could you explain what your objection is to including this widely quoted figure of at least 1.8 million non-Jewish Polish dead in this article, given that both the USHMM and the UCL Centre for Holocaust Education consider it an important part of their remit to communicate this figure? Andreas JN466 16:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

My position is that the article should be based on peer-reviewed scholarship, rather than educational websites. (t · c) buidhe 16:28, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

You surely are aware that these national-level educational websites are based on peer-reviewed scholarship and are surely not arguing that there is no peer-reviewed scholarship available to source that 1.8–1.9 million figure for non-Jewish Poles.

So, please explain why this widely quoted (including in Wikipedia) figure should be absent from this article, and why Wikipedia should do exactly the opposite of what highly regarded educators in the US and the UK do and recommend with regard to this matter. Andreas JN466 16:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

And which peer review sources justify including so much content about Soviet people in the lead, and nothing about the Poles, Serbs, Slavs in general, homosexuals or African Germans? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Well to start with 1) the sources cited in the article and 2) the emphasis in the sources might be related to the fact that the non-Jewish Soviet civilian death might be something on the order of 15 million compared to around 1.8 million non-Jewish Poles, around 500,000–600,000 total Yugoslov civilian deaths, and a few thousand German homosexual men?

Soviet POWs were systematically killed, Polish POWs captured in 1939 were not. Soviet cities like Leningrad were systematically starved, that was considered for Polish cities but not implemented to the same extent. Instead the Germans chose Operation Reinhard to reduce the number of people they had to feed. As Gerlach points out the Czechs were also a Slavic people and there was no racial basis for considering them different from other Slavs (p. 165), yet the occupation of the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was much less deadly. (edited) (t · c) buidhe 17:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

And while all of this seems relevant to the topic of mass killings, I think this is just not relevant to the lead of this article. How about solving this gordian knot by limiting the lead to discussing Jewish casualties only? Particularly since in your rewrite you significantly reduced the body of this article which used to discuss the non-Jewish casualties (by ~90% or so...)? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I would not object to that solution. (t · c) buidhe 17:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

'a majority of reliable sources' (Jehochman). 'in keeping with the cited sources' (Buidhe) I don't know what you are referring to. Holocaust scholarship of a high order runs into thousands of monographs. Are you referring to those used on the page 'so far'? One of the foundational postwar texts on the holocaust is Léon Poliakov's 1951 Bréviaire de la haine: Le IIIe Reich et les Juifs, and he mentions Generalplan Ost's intention of wiping out on the same racial grounds as were applied to Jews some 50 million Slavic people (p.39 from memory). Please read Generalplan Ost (which could be greatly improved since editors don't seem to be interested in it)Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment: this was already discussed in #Talk:The_Holocaust#Article_scope_redux; I don't think that the consensus has changed. In re: the USHMM article on Polish victims, the article does not mention that they were murdered in the Holocaust, but describes the general Nazi policies towards Poland: "...the Germans ruthlessly suppressed the Poles by murdering thousands of civilians, establishing massive forced-labor programs, and relocating hundreds of thousands." ("Polish victims"). -- K.e.coffman (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

See here some small sample of the available documentation concerning why 560 academics (in good part Jewish specialists) think the USHMM's long-standing refusal to engage with Polish and other victims of genocide in order to preserve the 'uniqueness' of the holocaust intolerable. That institution, with its known political take on this, notwithstanding the great merits of its work otherwise, cannot form the default benchmark for what can and cannot be said of the holocaust. Academia does not accept that a concept has a monopoly tyrademark or requires a Vatican-like ex-cathedra blessing.Nishidani (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that we should treat the USHMM as the end-all. In fact, the article barely cites the USHMM at all. However, it should be based on the best quality scholarship available. Your proposed lead, for example, is not currently in concordance with what the body of the article says. Specifically, what Holocaust-related sources have I overlooked that would justify the revisions to make this a reasonable summary of the article text about non-Jewish victims? (edit: I see you mention above Generalplan Ost, which is indeed mentioned in the article. However, this plan was never implemented and the sources understandably focus on what the Nazis actually did rather than what they planned to do). (t · c) buidhe 16:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Well i.e. WP:MOS which suggests you are okay with editors writing a separate section on the page dealing with this (also by connecting the disiecta membra of scattered remarks touching on this aspect in the article already), which has significant (inclusivist) RS to be done, in order to justify changing the lead along the lines suggested?

'this plan was never implemented'. No, wrong. Again, we are picking from a small number of sources to make vast generalizations. The Vad Yashem site says the Generalplan Ost though not fully implemented, inflected many Nazi activities in the war. Since they are highly synthetic, one could add one, at least, well-documented case in which Generalplan Ost was implemented, by Odilo Globocnik in the The Zamość district (See Hugo Service, Germans to Poles Communism, Nationalism and Ethnic Cleansing After the Second World War, Cambridge University Press 2013 ISBN 978-1-107-67148-5p.31. This experiment, as similar ones in the Ukraine and the Crimea, failed because of intense partisan attacks and was abandoned for logistical reasons - it would have required far more forces needed directly on the battelefront to maintain than was possible. Nishidani (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

But, as predictable, this sensible suggestion will fall flat, and exclusivism will prevail as it has for two decades. I'll drop commenting and leave it to third parties to examine this further, otherwise the thread will get clogged and the cogency of each position will be blurred into WP:TLDR, as is often the case when sensitive, ethnically-inflected, issues are raised.Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Nishidani, I wrote the article as best I could based on the most reliable sources I could find and access. As for GPO not being implemented, perhaps I could have been more nuanced. For example, Bartov 2023 states that the mass murder of Jews was the only part of the GPO that was "successful", Longerich says (page 217) that it "had more or less failed", and Gerlach says, "the impact of settlement policy on overall German occupation policies was limited, and the link between settlement policy and the persecution of Jews was weak.". I'm not familiar with this Service book but it doesn't seem like its stated topic is the Holocaust, so it may be more relevant to cite in other articles. (t · c) buidhe 17:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

K.e.coffman: The point I am making is that the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and the UCL Centre for Holocaust Education both communicate that number, and we do not; and that the UCL specifically points out that it is very important to communicate that number, as otherwise our kids receive a deficient Holocaust education. We're doing well in this article with regard to the 3.3 million Soviet prisoners of war (they weren't murdered in the Holocaust, narrowly conceived, either), so I am absolutely mystified why there is so much resistance here on this talk page to the idea of doing the same for Polish victims of the Nazis. Andreas JN466 17:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources, I don’t see why we wouldn’t mention the number killed for other groups, stopping at some reasonable threshold. This is important context and we should link to the relevant articles. While not strictly part of the Holocaust, such deaths show that the Holocaust was part of a larger wave of Nazi genocides and atrocities. Jehochman ^Talk 17:54, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. There are many academic sources; see World War II casualties of Poland.

One advantage of high-quality tertiary sources like the USHMM or the UCL Centre for Holocaust Education is that they look at all the different estimates published at various times and come up with what we may hope is a sensible number.

Here is another such UK source, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust: It is estimated that the Nazis killed at least 1.9 million non-Jewish Polish civilians during World War Two.

This site is roughly the UK equivalent of the USHMM. (Holocaust Memorial Day Trust (HMDT) is the charity established and funded by the UK Government to promote and support Holocaust Memorial Day (HMD) in the UK.)

These three tertiary sources (USHMM, UCL, HMD) are in fairly good agreement. I believe this is a better way of proceeding than a couple of editors here deciding which paper's number to share with readers.

For Polish government historians' estimates, see World War II casualties of Poland#Institute of National Remembrance. If I'm reading the table correctly, then their estimate of civilian deaths is a little higher, at 2.2 million. Note that well over one million of those are "deaths in prisons and camps". See also [7], pp. 178–179. Andreas JN466 20:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Civilian deaths are not synonymous with killing, however. The imprecise language often used in sources aimed at a popular audience is another reason to cite scholarly sources that are expected to state clearly where the figures come from. (t · c) buidhe 20:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems there is one serious misconception here. Many users implicitly assume that "The Holocaust" = "Murder of certain groups of people by Nazi and their collaborators". According to this logic, if Nazi were killing Poles, then murder of Poles should be considered as a part of the Holocaust.

As far as I know, uniqueness of the Holocaust is a pretty broadly discussed concept. In contrast to "an ordinary" genocide, it had some specific features, and should be treated as such.

Besides uniqueness of the Holocaust, there is another reason why we should separate the Holocaust from Nazi genocide in general. A general public, especially in the West, believe that murder of Jews was a major Nazi crime. In reality, it was not: the number of civilians killed as a result of Nazi/Wehrmacht activity was much higher than 6 million. If we add only Polish civilians and Soviet POWs that were de facto murdered by starvation or exposure to the elements, we get almost 5 million. However, besides that, one quarter of pre-war Belorussian population was killed during the war, a significant fraction of Ukrainian population or the population of occupied territories of Russia were the victims of Nazi policy. Starvation of the huge city of Leningrad was also a result of a brutal Nazi policy. And so on, and so forth.

We cannot, and we should not add those victims to this article for several reasons. First, we dilute the topic (extermination of Jews by Nazi), which leads to the Holocaust trivialization.

Second, we implicitly create some hierarchy of victims (Jews as "true" victims vs "others").

A correct approach would be to clearly say that (i) the Holocaust was an extermination of Jews by Nazi; (ii) during the war, Nazi killed much more civilians, and the Holocaust was not the only genocide perpetrated by Nazi. and these deaths are discussed in other articles. In connection to that, it probably makes sense to create a mother article for this one. The tentative name of that article could be Mass killings under the Nazi rule, and it should cover the genocide of Poles, killing of Soviet POWs, Belorussians, Ukrainians, etc, AND the Holocaust. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Death toll section

Perhaps some of the disagreement above could be resolved by structuring the death toll section more nationally (especially since most of Kay's listed victim groups are also covered elsewhere in the article? How about a few sentences like the following:

"Historian Christian Gerlach estimates that 6–8 million non-Jews were killed by Germany and its allies. In some countries such as Poland, Hungary, Belgium, and Czechia, Jews were a majority of the total non-combat war deaths, while elsewhere such as the Soviet Union, France, and Greece, they were a minority."

Source:

In many European countries the number of non-Jewish victims of German and Axis violence – even putting military losses aside – far surpassed that of Jews who were murdered. In the Soviet Union (as constituted by its borders of May 1941), about 30% of all German-induced loss of human life outside of battle were Jews; in France , 40%; in Greece , 20–22% and in Italy and Yugoslavia 6% each. Among Germans, about a third of the victims of Nazism were Jews. 4 In Poland , Belgium (38%) and the Czech lands (32%), non-Jews were a sizable minority of the victims. In Hungary the civilian dead were mostly Jewish. 5 During World War II, Germans (and people from other powers) killed not only 6 million Jews but also 6–8 million other non-combatants. The largest among these non-Jewish victim groups were Soviet POWs – of whom 3 million died. (gerlach p.3)

(t · c) buidhe 17:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

" German and Axis violence" ≠ "The Holocaust". I think the solution should be to create a mother article for this one (something like " German and Axis violence against civilians", and to discuss all victims there. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this was also my suggestion but it was vetoed above and the article I started, Mass killings by Nazi Germany, was redirected. (t · c) buidhe 20:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war alone was so significant mass killing that makes it impossible to fit into this article. This topic and the Holocaust have significant common features (the Untermensch concept). Let's make a draft on your or my talk page (sandbox), and then let's convert the "Mass killings by Nazi Germany" redirect into the full scale summary style article. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

This mother article should discuss

• The Nazi ideology (Mein Kampf"), the Untermensch concept, according to which some ethnic groups were deemed unworthy to live, some of them were supposed to be decimated (literally) and converted to slaves.
• Implementation of this concept, including
  • The Holocaust (main article The Holocaust),
  • Mass killing of Poles,
  • Mass killings of Sotiet POWs
  • etc
• A discussion of a total number of the Nazi genocide victims.

It should be clear from that new article that it is cannot be reduced just to the Holocaust.

I propose to return to this discussion when the draft is ready. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)