This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Can somebody explain why the word "murder" is used repeatedly throughout the article? Nevermind, I know exactly why. But it shouldn't be. If you look at articles about the killing fields of Cambodia or even the rape and destruction of eastern Europe by the Red Army, the word murder scarcely if ever appears.
I suggest that the term 'murder' be replaced with a less POV word like killing.
To be honest this article is so hopelessly POV I suggest it be nuked and we start over. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
You would need to explain why you thought the article was "hopelessly POV". The the other articles you mention might not be in compliance with WP:EUPHEMISM; that is no reason to soften this article. VQuakr (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Here's a guess, because people were murdered. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems obvious to me that the pro-Jewish lobby has ensured that emotional and potentially untrue language (murder is a precise legal term) is used for the Jewish tragedy. What about the Rwandans, or the Ukrainians, or the Chinese? Their lobby is not as powerful, they do not exploit their sufferings into the present day for political gain. This entire article is unfit for consumption, it is pure propaganda. I am no "Holocaust Denier", I just think an encyclopedia as widely read as Wikipedia should be impartial and avoid pandering to any particular group. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the unreferenced statement is obvious to some, but it is not true. To take just one example: Timothy Snyder, Professor of History at Yale writes as follows "The term Holocaust was introduced after the war and, by the 1990s, was generally (although by no means always) understood to mean the mass murder of the Jews by the Germans. In this book the term Holocaust signifies the final version of the Final Solution, the German policy to eliminate the Jews of Europe by murdering them. (Snyder, Timothy (2010-10-12). Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (Kindle Locations 7591-7594). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.)Joel Mc (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with VQuakr that the statement is nonsense, but but I reverted as there are people out there who believe that nonsense which is why I added my statement with the reference to Snyder. There are of course many other examples that could be given. Joel Mc (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The definition of murder (Mord) in Germany during WW2 is defined by § 211 StGB in the criminal code. Up to 1941, it required "wilfully" and "deliberately" killing a person. The code was changed in 1941 to include specific motives. One of the subsections is "[wer tötet] heimtückisch oder grausam oder mit gemeingefährlichen Mitteln", or "[whoever kills] insidiously or cruelly or with dangerous means." The code was not changed after 1945. Roches (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no 'pro-Jewish lobby' controlling Wikipedia articles. You're free to change it yourself if you care enough, and can follow the guidelines to a point that wouln't get your ideas tossed by dispute moderators. 'Murder' is not an emotional term, its a fact. If this article were speaking about deaths between willing combatants, it might be considered POV to use the word murder. But deliberately murdering unwilling civilian populations is murder. This article does not only deal with Jewish deaths, but also that of the Roma, Jehovah's Witnesses, Homosexuals, Catholics, Slavs, et alia. You seem to be the one making distinctions about Jews, User @ 18.104.22.168. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
"Yehuda Bauer and Lucy Dawidowicz maintained that from the Middle Ages onward, German society and culture were suffused with antisemitism, and that there was a direct ideological link from medieval pogroms to the Nazi death camps."
I have two comments:
1) This passage seems unduly one-sided. Antisemitism is by no means a particularly German phenomenon, but rather part of a broader Christian tradition (witness Spanish expulsion of Jews after the Reconquista, French antisemitism in Dreyfus affair, Norwegian closure of borders to Jews until 1851 etc. etc.).
2) The references adduced seem random. Why are these two authors in particular singled out here? I do not have access to the Bauer text, but I have consulted Dawidowicz. In the referenced passage she says nothing about the Middle Ages (nor about any "direct ideological link from medieval pogroms to the Nazi death camps"), but gives a brief (<1 page) discussion of Martin Luther's views and compares them to Hitler's.
In my opinion the paragraph should be rewritten as an ultra-short outline of Christian/European antisemitism, perhaps with a reference or two to authors that have given extensive and in-depth treatment of the history of this theme. Since I am not a specialist, I cannot with confidence suggest such a text myself. Filursiax (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
—I disagree that the article is unbalanced this way. By and large, it is not. The article correctly points out that the Nazi genocide of the Jews was primarily a racist one, not a Christian one, although Christian Anti-Judaism made it harder for Christians to systematically oppose Nazi Anti-Semitism early on, when it could have been--perhaps--more effectively opposed. Anyway many Christians were also subject to victimization in the Holocaust in the broader sense of the term--the sense which this article adopts for the most part. However, I agree with Filursiax that the sources chosen on the subject are rather arbitrary and perhaps not well used. For instance, if one wants to look at the ways Nazi ideology, including Nazi Anti-Semitism, drew in Christian elements that existed in German culture, the source to use is Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, e.g. pp. 261-263, where he argues that the Christians most co-opted by Nazism ideologically, including in their hostility to the Jews, were the kind of nationalist Protestants known as "Positive Christians." Including something about this would counterbalance the quite debatable implication of Mommsen that Catholics were more prone to accept Nazi claims about the Jews. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Dracontius
I don't have access to either source, so I can not comment on their validity. However, if they do say what was cited, can we remove it simply because we don't like the tone? It isn't a biased statement, but a proposed statement of fact. If the sources are not valid, the statement should be removed for that reason, but if it sourced correctly, it should stay. Goalie1998 (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- Dracontius, my remarks did not concern the article as a whole, only the quoted passage from the first paragraph in this section, which claims that "from the Middle Ages onward, German society and culture were suffused with antisemitism," and that "there was a direct ideological link from medieval pogroms to the Nazi death camps" (my underlinings). Aside from the fact that Dawidowicz makes no such claims, my main objection was that the passage insinuates (cf. the underlined superlatives) that Nazi anti-semitism sprang from uniquely German roots, while in fact anti-semitism is a European phenomenon, with roots that go back through the Middle Ages to the split between Christianity and Judaism in the 1st century AD. Placing the blame so squarely on German shoulders is not only unreasonable, but historically incorrect. I can find reputable sources who support this view, but I don't have time to do any massive bibliographical sleuthing. (Full disclosure: I am myself neither Jewish nor German.)
- Goalie1998, Dawidowicz is definitely incorrectly quoted here. I have not read Bauer, but even if he does propose a fact, I think he should not be included. The trouble with the passage is not that it speaks of a German tradition of anti-semitism, but that it does not even mention that this German tradition was embedded in a wider European tradition. For the reader it must seem that historically, the German tradition (since the Middle Ages!) was in some way a uniquely vicious form of anti-semitism... Of course it would be possible to check the Bauer reference, find other references that support other notable historians' points of view on the subject, and go into the whole argument broadly, but it seems to me that this (at least) would mean that the paragraph would have to be expanded to whole new section. I suggest, instead, that we delete the passage for now, and if necessary return to it later, to give it a broader and more balanced treatment. Filursiax (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
A brief reply—I am far from my libes. A quick look at the references is that they are wrong. While both report that German religious anti-semitism in the Middle Ages provided fertile ground for the virulent modern German variety culminating in the Nazi form. Dawidowicz writes: “modern German anti-Semitism had more recent roots than Luther and grew out of a different soil…” Bauer in his review of Goldhagen in Rethinking the Holocaust finds the argument that "Germans killed the Jews…because they had wanted to since the Middle Ages” to be “mindless simplicity.” I would agree to deleting the passage. It might be good to add something about the Europe-wide religious anti-semitism, particularly of the Roman Catholic church, which Luther built upon. This is particularly relevant to Germany as Luther wrote his pamphlet in the vernacular.Joel Mc (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
The Holocaust refers to civilians killed by execution or neglect by deliberate order or construction of the Axis regime in Europe. The term itself arguably only refers to Jews, though I don't subscribe to that notion. It does not refer to similar actions by Stalin, Mao, or Imperial Japan occurring at or about the same time. It does not refer to the Allied or Axis bombing of civilian targets in WWII, either. German deaths by American neglect after the war is not related to the holocaust. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I made some changes in the beginning paragraphs of the article. I was taken aback at how the Jewish casualties were prioritized and set above the others, so I decided to equalize it by lumping them together with the other murdered victims. I anticipate that this will catch quite a bit of flak, so let's try to keep it civil and debate here. Lord of Mirkwood (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, Irondome was quick to revert it. It probably took longer for you to make the edits than for him to undo it; a good 8 minutes. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, Bataaf van Oranje. The subsequent discussion was continued on my talk page, and was resolved in a satisfactory manner over a week ago. for your convenience, I reproduce the subsequent discussion below. Regards, Irondome (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Holocaust Article Hi Irondome,
You mentioned that the Holocaust article was about the "Jewish Holocaust." However, in the first paragraph of the article, it says that some historians use a definition including the five million non-Jews. Don't worry, I'm not going to revert your revert - don't want an edit war! - but I just wanted to talk it out and reach consensus here. If you'd prefer to talk somewhere else, I set up a section on the relevant article's talk page. I think it's more efficient and better conveys the information if the different target groups are lumped together. After all, should we also provide statistics (e.g. what percentage of the group was killed, how many children of each group were killed) for Roma, Catholics, mentally ill, Soviet POWs, etc.?
Thank you for reading. Lord of Mirkwood (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
(Talk page stalker) It would better if the matter was discussed on the Holocaust talk page. The archives have several threads relating to this issue. many editors (like me) un-watched the article because of the constant drama. My view (which you will see if you read the threads) is that "The Holocaust" refers to the Jews. The Roma have their own term, and some of the others have advocates that want to associate the losses of "their" people with the genocide of the Jews with a range of motives. I believe the academic consensus is that they should be kept separate, but acknowledge that there is a vocal minority who disagree. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) Welcome LoM. I appreciate your courteous and measured posting. Please note that the operative word is some, in the section in the lede which mentions "some historians.." This indicates that their positions does not reflect the majority current historical consensus among current research, and I fear your edit would fall under WP:UNDUE in the sense of making such a significant edit. The Holocaust is a vastly complex subject as we are all aware, but it is generally accepted that the primary targets of the event were the Jewish people, in line with the racial obsessions and paranoid projecting of the Nazi phenomenon. I believe the plight of the other groups affected is adequately covered by the links which your edit removed. The line of argumentation of adding all the afflicted groups risks confusing some core issues, the primary one being that the Holocaust was a consequence of an imagined racial war between "Aryans" and the Jewish people. This is a critical point. As has been said by Richard Grunberger, the centrality of the Jewish "threat" to Nazi theory was as critical to it's ideology as was class to Marxist doctrine. I would argue that the current versions should stand for these reasons. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. I just looked at the links which suffered as collateral damage from my edit and it looks as though they cover the topic well. Lord of Mirkwood (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I think this article is really dodgy in the way it separates victims. NJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of respect to all victims of the Holocaust the term "killing" should not be used! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengt Hennig (talk • contribs) 03:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Why are you quoting a months-old comment by an IP? The existing lede already refers to genocide, and to mass murder. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The reversion of your edits has more to do with the change in the number. The 6 million vs 11 million is discussed in detail right there in the lede, and "murdered" is also used. We use "killed" in addition to "murdered" simply to avoid repetition of words, its just good writing practice. The article doesn't mince words over the number of victims or the description of their deaths. Acroterion(talk) 03:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Killing is defined as the death of a living thing caused by another. Murder describes a deliberate and premeditated killing. I find it is important to emphasise this in the introduction
I would also like to change "Some historians use a definition of the Holocaust that includes the additional five million non-Jewish victims of Nazi". This wording is very objectifying and does not honour the gravity of events. I think this sentence should be changed. The focus on Historians should be moved out of the introduction. It should simply state that some people regard the Holocaust as the murder of 11 million people by the Nazis.
Thanks to Acroterion and AndyTheGrump for keeping a watchful eye on the article! Bengt Hennig (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Since historians are what wikipedia tends to use as reliable sources for historical articles, your suggestion doesn't make much sense to me. I also don't see how plain, factual wording either honours or dishonours the "gravity of events". (Hohum@) 16:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that it is essential to uphold the factuality of the article. However, I find the wording to be depreciating. It seems that five million murdered humans are written off as "the additional five-million". I think it would be fitting to simply substitute: (1) "Some historians use a definition..." with "Some people regard the Holocaust as the murder of 11 million people by including an additional five million non-Jewish victims." Would this change be reasonable? Bengt Hennig (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I don’t see that the factual statement: "Some historians use a definition…” is any sense “depreciating” the non-Jewish victims of Nazi mass murders. The next para provides WP links to articles on each of the major groups of non-Jewish victims. Even though the number of “some historians" is rather small compared to the vast majority of historians writing on the period in English, the sentence was put in after some discussion because of the Niewyk et.al. reference. Furthermore, while there is a reference for “some historians”, “some people” seems to me to be un-referenceable weasel words. I would not agree to make such a change. Joel Mc (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia stands as an Encyclopedia for the people by the people. It aspires to be accurate and truthful. However it is by no means a historical book. For that, any interested party may look up the sources attached to each article. I think the editors should take a step back and evaluate if fixating on complexities (right at the start) is the best way to convey knowledge!
These are my views: This introduction to a comprehensive article (where any disputes are by all means explained later on) should have clear, easy to understand content which respects; the World is inhabited by People and not Historians. The detailed argumentation needs to be left to professionals, but this can be moved away from the preamble. Bengt Hennig (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I really can't see what it is that you have issues with. The lede is "accurate and truthful". It isn't difficult to understand. It makes clear what the topic of the article is. It makes clear that the Nazis engaged in mass murder. It gives numbers for such murders. It also makes clear that there are differences of opinion in academia (as elsewhere) over which of the victims should be specifically included in the term 'Holocaust'. As such, it performs the role expected of an article lede - to summarise the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)