Talk:The Holocaust

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Holocaust)
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee The Holocaust was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Supplemental (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  Quality: C-Class
Checklist icon
 Top  Importance: Top

Contents

ethnic or biological factors[edit]

can someone provide a quote for the source of this statement in the lead as part of the "broader" definition of genocide? I have not seen this term used outside of modern (Post-Yugoslavia) genocide trials - biological factors, for example, is a legal term referring to forced sterilization. I am wary of bringing it in as part of the definition of the Holocaust unless it is strongly supported by a significant number of mainstream sources. For example, many scholars consider the persecution of the Church and Catholics under the Nazi regime to be part of the Holocaust. I see a few references to Catholics in the article, but nothing about the persecution of the Church. For example, this Britannica article about Alfred Rosenberg says that under Rosenberg's conception of "Semites" - Catholics (and Christians) were considered "Semites" (i.e. enemies of the Nordic race). Seraphim System (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/education/newsletter/25/algeria_marocco.asp, https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=19567739461&cm_sp=collections-_-7eyuQY9wunfJTK68VgHDBs_item_1_25-_-bdp and Peter Longerich (2012) Heinrich Himmler, p. 663. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, done as you requested. Let me know if I messed any up, missed any, or you need any back. Antandrus (talk) 00:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Reference format ...[edit]

Right now, the article is a mix of various systems - list defined, sfn, full cites, etc. As part of the WP:Core Contest, I'm going to be working on verifying and cleaning up the information in the article (note - this will not be a wholesale rewrite - mostly cleanup and making sure everything is cited as well as verifying that the citations are correctly attached to information. Any major additions/subtractions, etc. would only come after the cleanup... have to know what we have before we can add or subtract from it). I'd like to standardize the references on one system. I lean towards using the Template:sfn system ... if that's okay with most of the editors here? (Actually, I prefer to use the system I used in Middle Ages, but I doubt everyone would be happy if I barged in and just changed it over to that... so we'll stick with a system in use in the article already). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:sfn system: Great idea. Go for that. Joel Mc (talk) 20:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Strangely enough {{sfn}} is never used in Middle Ages, nor any other template, except for {{efn}}. Carlotm (talk) 22:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. If I was starting this article from scratch, I'd use the <ref name=XXX>Author ''Title'' p. #</ref> system (with full cites in the References section) I used there. But this article doesn't use that at all, so it'd be rude to switch over. Thus, per WP:CITEVAR, I'm asking on the talk page to see what the other regular editors would prefer to standardize on. While I don't really like either Template:Harvnb or Template:Sfn, they are clearly the most common style used here, so unless everyone panders to me (which I do not expect, let me make it clear), we need to stick with one of the prevailing styles already in use. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The Template:Sfn makes it the easiest to re-use content across articles, so I would recommend it for this one. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyone else going to weigh in? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't have a strong opinion. I usually use sfn as it is small and is easily generated on Yadkard. I use it when taking notes on my Evernotes. Then it is easy to retrieve, but there must be a dozen similar systems used by others. --Joel Mc (talk) 17:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The Holocaust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  16:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"Standard euphemism"[edit]

This sentence "The "final solution" (Endlösung) became the standard Nazi euphemism for the plan of annihilating the Jewish people." keeps getting this source attached to it. It doesn't support the information, because no where in the cited source is the information that "final solution" became the "standard Nazi euphemism". Just restoring the same source that fails verification is not helpful. Either a source that actually supports ALL of the information in the sentence needs to be found, or we will have to rewrite the information, but for now, in the interests of trying to save (i.e. WP:PRESERVE) as much information as I can, I've not rewritten the information. Please do NOT restore sources that have failed verification. It just makes more work for others. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Notes vs. citations[edit]

It appears that there are some cases where notes are being formatted as citations, like #327 in the Citations section in this version (current version when I wrote this).

I am happy to change them to the notes format, but thought I'd check here first to see if there is a reason why some notes are appearing in the citation section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Because I haven't yet verified the information in the citation - I'm still waiting on a few books to come in through ILL. Some of them are just quotes from the sources, rather than true explanatory notes - current ref #79 is just a long quote, but I haven't gotten my hands on the book yet so ... I've left the verifying quote in for now. And that's why there are still some books with full bibliographic information in the citations - haven't gotten those books in yet, so its easier for me to keep track that I need to keep working to track them down. Any references that I can't verify, I'll have to hunt up new references for them. It's still very much a work in progress as we go through. This is where we were when I started cleaning on the citations. HOpefully, we'll be able to verify most of the uncited stuff with current sources... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, Yep, I wasn't referring to the ones that are citations with quotes, like #79, I meant the ones that appear to be just notes, like #327.
What I am getting from what you are saying is that you're working on the citations in general - and it sounds as if it's better if no one else gets in the mix right now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not trying to warn folks off... but yeah, it's not exactly easy to coordinate with others to clean up those last niggling ones that haven't been converted. The main problem children are #233, #327 (if you happen to read Slovenian .... feel free to tackle this one), #341, #408 (I have qualms about this work - it appears self-published from the little I can see, and I'm afraid it might be not so reliable). #400 appears to be a Russian book just badly formatted, but I've just ignored it up until now as I worked on the bigger issues. If you happen to speak any of the non-English languages that have sources here, it'd be wonderful if you could verify that the sources are verifying the information.... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Gotcha. No, I don't speak Slovenian or Russian. I totally understand where you're coming from.
Let me know if there's another way I can help.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

A concern...[edit]

With this edit, the edit summary was "I put the chapter number, as I donated the book to a Holocaust center." - does this mean that the information it is sourcing (which is still unclear what exactly it is) was not actually put in from reading the work to make sure what the article is now saying is supported by the source being cited? Forgive me, but I have difficulties with information being added from memory if someone does not have the source in front of them. This is a problem, as it can very easily mean the information is not actually correct. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

copy rights. Information from memory[edit]

1. Thank you so much for reminding not to copy - I should have put quotation.

2. I am not the editor who wrote: In many other genocides, pragmatic considerations such as control of territory and resources were central to the genocide policy.

I am the one who rearranged the style of the sentences, and added the citation of the chapter of Bauer, in parenthesis. Somebody, I think, use the template.

I did find the article of Bauer online. The sentence, "In many other genocides, pragmatic considerations such as control of territory and resources were central to the genocide policy" does reflect Bauer's wording in p. 7: "The third element was an ideology that was based not on any pragmatic, economic, political, military, or other consideration, but on what Marxists would call pure ideological superstructure. ... Take any other genocide and you will find similar pragmatic bases, on which of course ideologies were then built as rationalizations. ... There were no such pragmatic elements with the Nazis." End of quotation.

Here the link for the article: http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/ghhrcenter/main/Holocaust_and_Genocide_Today-Bauer.pdf

3. I was asked to provide a quotation for "It has been estimated that 250 Jews died under Nazi occupation;[124][full citation needed]" I did state that it is the number written in table at the Auschwitz museum in block 27, that I visited with my husband.

Thank you for your input.Henia Perlman (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

addressing the third point, a museum exhibit is a poor quality source. It is going to be difficult to verify, and is subject to change easily. For the same reason that we avoid using archival sources, we try to avoid using such things as exhibits and other similar sources. I'll reply to the rest when I'm at my actual computer and not on a tablet. But you added more than just that sentence that started "in many other genocides..." you added the sentences preceding it in the paragraph. By putting the Bauer ref at the end, you are saying Bauer is the source for ALL of the paragraph. And the source still is not clear...the citation says it is from a work titled Companion to World War II but there is no Lear idea what that work is. This is why I tried to gently steer you from editing this article, it's going to be difficult for you to learn without getting frustrated. The learning curve demanded here is going to be stiff, since this article is well developed and high profile. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
So ... this is what you added:

Nazism or National Socialism was the driving force behind the Holocaust. (Bauer), and its symbol was the swastika. Nazism mainly combined the elements of racism, with the concept of the Aryan race as the master race, and lebensraum (living space). But at its core was a murderous racial antisemitism, which makes the Holocaust an unprecedented kind of genocide. In many other genocides, pragmatic considerations such as control of territory and resources were central to the genocide policy.Template:Yehuda Bauer, "Holocaust and Genocide Today" in “A Companion to World War II.” (2013).

I did format the attempt at refs - but at some point your failure to do that properly is going to become disruptive. Carole very nicely explained how to format the refs on your talk page, I urge you to put forth the effort to learn how to do so.
By putting that paragraph in with the (mangled) attempt at the citation to: "Yehuda Bauer, "Holocaust and Genocide Today" in “A Companion to World War II.” (2013)." you are saying that ALL the information starting at "Nazism or National Socialism..." and ending at "...were central to the genocide policy." are sourced to this incomplete citation to Bauer. There are a number of problems with this edit
  • The very first sentence is ...."Nazism or National Socialism was the driving force behind the Holocaust." This is relatively fine but .... rather useless information.
  • The next bit is not at all clear. It's ungrammatical. "(Bauer), and its symbol was the swastika." Did you mean for this to be a clause of the first sentence? What is the (Bauer) here supposed to mean? And it's totally unneeded in an article on the Holocaust because we don't need to know what the Nazi symbol was to understand the Holocaust. It adds nothing to our knowledge.
  • Next bit isn't too bad: "Nazism mainly combined the elements of racism, with the concept of the Aryan race as the master race, and lebensraum (living space)." but has some formatting issues. We have a WP:MOS, or Manual of Style that helps us format things - and it says to use italics for foreign words.
  • The next sentence is a BIG problem. It violates a lot of rules. "But at its core was a murderous racial antisemitism, which makes the Holocaust an unprecedented kind of genocide." Whether Nazism was a "murderous racial antisemitism" is much much debated. This is the central core of Goldhagen's thesis and it's been roundly rejected by some Holocaust scholars. We cannot say baldly that Nazism was at its core "a murderous racial antisemitism" because we reflect what the consensus of the scholars is, and they don't have a consensus on this. This is a very important policy and all editors are expected to adhere to it. It is even MORE important on highly visible and contentious articles like this one. Then the last bit of the sentence does the same violation again - "which makes the Holocaust an unprecedented kind of genocide." This is again a contentious point in historical circles. Its so contentious that we have a section in THIS article about whether or not the Holocaust was unique. If we have such a section, we cannot say previously in the article that the Holocaust is an "unprecedented kind of genocide." We just can't. It isn't a consensus of the sources at all, as we demonstrate right here in this article.
  • The last bit isn't a problem, thankfully.
  • But .. there are OTHER issues. As I said above - by placing the (mangled) Bauer citation at the end, you're saying Bauer's article supports ALL of the information in the sentences preceeding it until you run into another citation. So ... Bauer's article needs to support each one of those sentences - and it doesn't. Just searching the online link to the article you gave above, there is not a single mention of "swastika/swastica", "symbol", "lebensraum", or "living space" - so it cannot support the bit about the swastika nor can it support the sentence "Nazism mainly combined the elements of racism, with the concept of the Aryan race as the master race, and lebensraum (living space)." - because it does not mention the lebensraum or living space part so it doesn't support the whole sentence. Nor, on a quick read through, does Bauer seem to support the first sentence, but I may have missed that.
So there are a huge number of problems with your edit, leaving aside the mangling of the templates to format the reference. The whole thing needs to go. And, I'm not trying to be mean here, but I am trying to point out how much needs to be learned before tackling such an article. This edit badly fails WP:VERIFY, WP:MOS, WP:NPOV, and I'm sure some other policies and guildelines. This is why people are urging you to not jump into such a contentious article because things on this article have to be done RIGHT. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Editing "Ideology and scale" with definition of Nazism
Ealdgyth, thank you so much for taking the time to read and your thoughtful analyse of my edits. I put numbers to keep me focused.
I. I didn’t write: pragmatic considerations such as control of territory and resources were central to the genocide policy.
II. Ok with museum not being a good source.
I do have a diagram with the numbers of Holocaust victims, by a written source mentioned sometimes in tWikipedia. Is it ok? Will you help insert the diagram?
III. I don’t think that “Nazism or National Socialism was the driving force behind the Holocaust."’ is …rather useless information.”” Books on the Holocaust always include a paragraph/chapter on Nazism, to describe origins of the Holocaust.
I think that
1. a definition of Nazism, a main driving force behind the Holocaust, and the mention of swastika are logic, useful, in a section with its main title “Origins” and the subtitle “Ideology.” That’s what other books do logically when they write “Ideology”. The reader would like to read one or two sentences about that ideology.
2. Swastika should be mentioned, because
  • a. the swastika was used in Nazi propaganda to rally the German people to support Hitler’s regime.
  • b. “Before the Nazis, the swastika was already in use as a symbol of German völkisch nationalist movements,” and the Holocaust article has a long, too long section I think, on völkisch.
  • c. “the swastika … its use as a Nazi or hate symbol, is prohibited in some countries, including Germany. In Poland, public display of Nazi symbols, including the Nazi swastika, is a criminal offence punishable by up to eight years of imprisonment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika#Use_in_Nazism
Thank you again.Henia Perlman (talk) 01:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Please read WP:TPG and try to follow those best practices when replying to someone's posts - don't start a new section, you can use formatting to reply. I've made this a subsection of the above section, but really it shouldn't be even that, it should just be a reply to my post above. As for the "pragmatic considerations such as control of territory and resources were central to the genocide policy." - you attached a source to the information, thus you are saying that the source supports that information. But, yes, you just put a source on it. But.... that's the one sentence in that paragraph that isn't an issue. Do you understand all the problems I enumerated above? They are very very very important. Verification and NPOV are the foundation of what makes a good wikipedia article. We must always remember that we are an encyclopedia and we just report what the sources say in the proportions that are in the sources. We can't let our own beliefs of what is true influence our editing - if there is a controvery or disagreement in the sources, we report that, we do not choice which is the "right" side.
III - we aren't a book. We have wikilinks. We link to other articles so we don't have to bloat up an article with information that isn't strictly germaine to the source. This applies to the swastika and long definitions of what Nazism was. Again, we are not a book. We are an encyclopedia. A paper encyclopedia would so something like "see Nazism" where things like symbols (i.e. the swastika) would be covered. We use a wikilink instead to link to that. This is a major difference between writing a book and writing for an encyclopedia. This article is already very long and large. It's about 7,000 to 12,000 words over suggested size for an article. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Simon. Irondome reversed my edit on the number of 38 areas connected with the Holocaust[edit]

I am trying to resolve a conflict.

  • 1. I would like Simon to explain
    • a. his reasons to reverse my edit specifying 38 areas and not 20, in section “Ideology and scale”, based on a reliable source and good faith. I asked and he didn’t answer.
    • b. the use of “rollback” for article the Holocaust.

I am not engaged in “vandalism”, “disruptive behavior“, editing (or other behavior) deliberately to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose.” My goal is to improve the article “Holocaust” in good faith, by using my 20 years of extensive knowledge of books on the subject, and teaching to non-experts a delicate and controversial subject.

I am trying to help the Holocaust article, a class B article, to become a class A article.

Looking forward for Simon’s answers. Thank you.Henia Perlman (talk) 01:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Henia, please read the article in it's total entirety. Pay special attention to the blue links and read the attached articles also. Much of what you are saying above is covered in those links. The information you wish to add is almost entirely covered by other articles. Please please do re-read WP:NPOV and WP:OR, in addition to the links kindly given above by our colleague. Have you read Swastika? I think you are becoming bogged down in detail. This can happen. Also, I am concerned that you may be too emotionally involved in this subject. I would ideally like to see you making minor edits, gradually adding content, and getting to grips with the main guidelines of WP first. Maybe we can collaborate on improving an article? Do you know what a WP:STUB is? They are ideal training grounds. And yes, you do need your skills and knowledge of WP guidelines and procedures improved. Just let it not be on a subject which is remotely attached to the Shoah. I am quite happy to assist. Let us take your development here slowly. There is no rush. I must be honest and say that at this stage, you are not equipped in terms of experience to work in such complex, nuanced and controversial subjects. Please take this in the spirit in which it was intended. To help you develop, painlessly. Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
@Henla: WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is also worth a read. Encyclopedia articles don't try to cover every last nuance of a given subject, and as Irondome says, they don't reiterate what's covered in more specialized linked articles. Acroterion (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Reiterate what's covered in Holocaust article
1. The reader/student does not like sometimes to read links with long article, and it is helpful to summarize in one or two sentences the definition of Nazism - frankly, it is the long paragraph on Volk that could be shortened and have a link.
2. Simon/Irondome reversed my editing in the section: WWII.
The current version:
Germany's invasion of Poland increased the urgency of the "Jewish Question". Poland was home to about three million Jews (nearly nine percent of the Polish population) in centuries-old communities, two-thirds of whom fell under Nazi control with Poland's capitulation.
My proposal:
Germany's invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, started World War II. Poland was home to about three million Jews (nearly nine percent of the Polish population) in centuries-old communities, two-thirds of whom fell under Nazi control with Poland's capitulation.
“increased the urgency of the "Jewish Question" - this sentence should be taken off, as the "Jewish Question" is not mentioned previously in the article, and I think it started to be used at the Wannsee conference – thus, there is maybe an issue of anachronism.
What do you think?
3. I am still waiting for Simon/Irondome to explain why he reversed my editing, with reliable reference, describing 38 areas in "scale of Holocaust" - the current version mentions only 20 territories.
Thank you.Henia Perlman (talk) 02:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The Jewish question was used as far back as the mid 1800's and was commonly used in debates about assimilation. The phrase only began to be unambiguously associated with antisemitism in the 1880's. Theodore Herzl wrote his seminal work using the phrase in it's title.[1]. You will note the quote marks around it also, signifying it as a peculiarity. Again we are back to Swastika I fear. Do not cherry pick please. Read things in their entirety. However, we can discuss it's presence further and call on other colleagues for consensus as to its incorporation or removal.
With regard to 3. I have explained several times that the edit was sub par in use of citation format and had not been discussed. Frankly your editing last night was arguably borderline disruptive and was irritating colleagues. In order to head off a possible unpleasant incident I chose to make a clean sweep and hold out my hand to assist you. Please note Henia, that this will be the third time I have explained my actions and motivations. I would sincerely ask you to listen more, internalise, and not repeat the same questions when they have been answered. This internet method of communication does not always lend well to clear understanding however, so I will be generous in my interpretations. Now it is a beer and bed for me. Good night Henia. Simon. Irondome (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Inserting

References

  1. ^ Theodor Herzl (1896). Der Judenstaat: Versuch einer modernen Lösung der Judenfrage (in German). M. Breitenstein's Verlags-Buchhandlung. Retrieved 2008-03-25. 

so that the citation does not fall to the bottom of this page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

38 areas of Holocaust

I am trying to read the article as if one of my students were reading it. And my students didn’t understand it. Sorry that people are getting upset - that's not my goal. No ultimatum. I still don't understand: "I have explained several times that the edit was sub par in use of citation format and had not been discussed." What is “sub par”? Will I have to discuss every edit I make with a reliable quotation? An editor told me that I have just to provide a reliable quotation.

I won't be able to understand the technical aspect of Wiki - I have been trying very hard, but I am too slow. The issue: is it more important to improve the article or to keep arguing about my technical skills?

" I chose to make a clean sweep and hold out my hand to assist you": ok, if you and all the others want to improve the article:

  • 1. can you please help insert a diagram with the most updated figures of Holocaust victims. The current table has wrong figures.
  • 2. If I provide you with the link for a map, can you please help insert a map of Europe during the Holocaust?
  • 3. Can you do something about this long section about volkish? I still don’t get it.
  • 4. Can you write history of the Holocaust in a chronological order, as per historical accepted standards?

The history of the persecution of other groups should be presented in the chronological order of the article, and not as a separate section.

Thank you. Regards.Henia Perlman (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The reason for the organization of the article is that it's a compromise between having the article be exclusively on the Jewish genocide versus having the other victims be in this article. By making the main section chronology deal mainly with the Jewish genocide, it makes it clear that the Jewish aspects were the largest part of the what is generally considered the Holocaust. It is very very unlikely that this will change as we are, again, writing an encyclopedia, not a history of the Holocaust. Such a long-standing consensus is very unlikely to be overturned, and I would imagine trying to change it would be very very frustrating. As for the volkish section, it's not very long and, frankly, I understand it fine. It may need some work later, but ... there is no point in rearranging stuff while so much of the article and content is not verified. The other two are addressed below. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Working together to improve article Holocaust[edit]

I want to clarify something that I told another editor: My field is Holocaust history and I continue to be interested only in that; I had specialized in: teaching, training teachers, researching and presenting at international conferences.

Lets's work together so Holocaust's article becomes class A article, and also a not controversial article. This request is for everybody and not only for Simon/irondome, because of my lack of wiki technical skills (I am a lost case!). Putting numbers help me to focus:

1. Can you please help insert a diagram with the most updated figures of Holocaust victims. The current table has wrong figures.

2. I have a good map of Europe in the Holocaust, from a relying source, can you please help insert this map?

Thank you. Cheers.Henia Perlman (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

1. Which table is "wrong"? What source are you using to source these figures? There are four or five tables with death tolls in them - they all show different things and we are trying to show the range of estimates. I'm pretty sure there isn't a scholarly consensus on a set of agreed-on number of victims, so we shouldn't be editing the article as if there was one set of correct figures and all others were not correct. This is again the whole point of WP:NPOV, which several people have urged you to read and understand. 2. We cannot use copyrighted maps. Period. All our maps must be copyright-free or at least compatible with a free use license. It is highly unlikely that any map you have from a source is going to be of a copyright status that we can use. Please read our policy on images at Wikipedia:Image use policy
Both of these concerns again speak to the need to understand what Wikipedia is. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Henia Perlman
Your background may be the Holocaust, but you are having significant issues with Wikipedia and seem to be reluctant to hear what has been said to you several times by several people. Collaboration and consensus is a key mode of operation, but it seems that you want to make the article the way that you want it, versus how it has evolved with the work of many editors and work by senior editors currently to tidy up citations, content, etc.
The advice to work with other articles first --- or try edits in the sandbox first and get them "article ready" -- seems to not be something that you are interested in. And, I mean no disrespect, but it doesn't seem that you really want to hear advice about how to follow Wikipedia guidelines. There have been a lot of patient people attempting to work with you, but this is getting out of hand.
Going forward, I am going to start posting warning tags on your user page for edits that are not ready to be posted.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Adding a section on the Handicapped[edit]

I just want to let you know that I added a section on the handicapped, since they are mentioned without a section of their own. Please feel free to discuss or add on the section. Thanks.Henia Perlman (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

There is actually a section already in the article - "Disabled and mentally ill" and it is sourced, unlike the ungrammatical section and unsourced section you just added. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Map of Europe[edit]

Ealdgyth wrote: It is highly unlikely that any map you have from a source is going to be of a copyright status that we can use.

I am slow, but I am reading Wiki material. You should assume that I am sincerely trying to learn, and my proposed map has no copyright issues at all.

I was all the time told to provide/add material based on reliable sources. And I did read about copyright issues.

Why should there be a double standard with me? (which reminds me Dershowitz's statement about attacks against Israel)

So, if the map has no copyright issues, I understand that you will use it.

Thank you.Henia Perlman (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you think there are no other Jews than you editing and watching this article Henia? As of this moment? As a Jew I find that somewhat rude. Your actions Henia, are being judged by one simple criteria. It is critical you read this link Henia. WP:CIR. That is the criteria. Please do not allude to 'double standards' based on race, nationality or creed again please. Simon. Irondome (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Of course it will be used if it has no copyright issues. :-) Robby.is.on (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Without any question. We want you to succeed and stay Henia. It is a steep learning curve but you are capable of positive contributions. Just ask. How to insert a citation, how to link articles, how to discuss if a book is good to be used..etc. Just ask. The easy things first. Simon. Irondome (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Map of Europe[edit]

Robby, Simon and Carole: Thank you for your kind word and encouragement.

1. Here link to relevant map in Wikipedia with “no copyright issues”: European theatre of World War II animation map, 1939–1945 — Red: Western Allies and Soviet Union after 1941; Green: Soviet Union before 1941; Blue: Axis Powers at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II Can you please help inserting it, if you find it appropriate? Thank you.

2. “It has been estimated that 250 Jews died under Nazi occupation;[123][full citation needed] Source: Yad Vashem.

Please, consider deleting sentence with too large number of 2,250 Jewish victims.[124]“, as I think that YV may be more reliable with that number than author Gaon – I may also be wrong.

Thank you for your encouragements. Have all a great day!Henia Perlman (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure what File:Second world war europe animation small.gif adds to this article though? It doesn't mention or show anything specifically Holocaust-related, so I'm not seeing the relevance to this article. If readers want to see more details on the territorial gains and losses during the war, they can go to the World War II article for that information. 2. If Gaon is normally a reliable source, then the only reason we should remove their estimate is because all the other scholars think Gaon's estimate is wrong. We'd need to see sources for this estimate being discredited. I'm also a bit confused, because you added the 2250 number here, so why now is it not a reliable number? And, "It has been estimated that 250 Jews died under Nazi occupation" is sourced to the exhibit display that we are still needing a full citation for, not to Yad Vashem. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
1. So sorry, I deleted the 2,250, before I saw message of Easdgyth. Originally, I didn't put the 2,250 - it was there. I took it out, and then put it back, after I added the 260 in table of Yad Vashem. Aricles in WIKi do mention Yad Vashem as a source (somebody in wiki stated that YV is partisan, but there is, for the moment, no reason to believe that their table, which includes number of Jewish victims in Finland, not mentioned in current table in wiki, is less accurate than Dr. Gaon, who is not an expert in Holocaust (his parents died in the Holocaust)

2. I found out that my Holocaust students did like the wki map, which make sense, because all scholars agree that the Holocaust took place in Europe during World War II, and evolved in that context.

I am ready to argue more on the subject, and seek a consensus from other editors. Meanwhile, I have to have breakfast, but will look for more sources to base the proposed map.

Thank you Ealdgyth for your comments. I do appreciate the time you take to explain me things with patience. Regards.Henia Perlman (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Please, click on map to see photos. Thank you.Henia Perlman (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I watched all the way through the animation on File:Second world war europe animation small.gif, and there are no photos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II is NOT a map, it's our article on World War II. Given that you said above that it was an animated map with red/green/blue - I assumed you meant you wanted to insert File:Second world war europe animation small.gif... if that's the case, I cannot understand the comment "Please, click on map to see photos." as the map animation doesn't have photos. We already link to the World War II article right in the very first sentence of this article. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I suspect Henia means the specific phases of the animation when she refers to 'photographs' here Ealdgyth. Simon. Irondome (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the number of Jewish people who died in Tunisia, I am looking around... and will keep looking, but the 250 vs. 2,250 might be apples and oranges. It seems that might not be a large number of people that were killed out-right, but it seems there were a couple/several thousand there were many killed in air raids, after having been sent to European concentration camps, or while at the slave labor camps. So, when talking about the number of Jews that died under Nazi Germany, what is the intended population of people?–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
1. Location of animated map (orange, green and blue) with some Holocaust photos:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II Section: Axis attack on the USSR (1941)

Map: European theatre of World War II with “territorial gains .. during the war”/German-occupied/controlled, and some of its photos, is directly connected with the Holocaust:

1. The article itself correctly specified: World War II[edit source] German-occupied Poland Germany's invasion of Poland increased the urgency of the "Jewish Question".

2. In article: Statement, names of title of book mentioned in bibliography of the article: The Holocaust Part of World War II

“Killings took place throughout German-occupied Europe, as well as within Nazi Germany, and across all territories controlled by its allies.[10] Most who survived the journey were systematically killed in gas chambers. … This continued until the end of World War II in Europe in April–May 1945. “Martin Gilbert estimates a total of more than 220,000 of the 700,000 Romani in Europe.”

Gilbert, Martin. The Holocaust: A History of the Jews of Europe during the Second World War. Henry Holt and Company: New York, 1985

Bergen, Doris (2009). The Holocaust: A Concise History (Second, revised ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-5714-7. Bergen connects Holocaust with Nazi gained territory (my book is in one of my 50 boxes)

3. All historians agree that “No war, no Holocaust” (Weinberg and Bergen), and that “territorial gains… during the war” by Nazi Germany brought to their hands more Jews to deal, and “increased the urgency of the "Jewish Question".

Nazi regime tried to deal with the Jewish question in every gained “territory …during the war”, when they could – Finland, not listed in the current table of Jewish victims, had 7 Jewish victims – Denmark, 116, because the Jews of Denmark were ferried to neutral Sweden, before Hitler’s Germany could implement mass deportations as they did in other places.

Carole: The names of 260 Jewish victims in Nazi occupied French Tunisia, killed with Vichy collaboration, are listed in the Book of Names compiled by Yad Vashem. List does not count Jews killed in air raids, as it does not do that for other countries.

Thank you both for your comments.Henia Perlman (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Your deployment of sources and focus of specific points is improving rapidly. Please add page numbers wherever possible. Simon. Irondome (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
If only I knew what it was that was wanted to be added. I gather we need to add a line to the table for Finland's deaths and for Denmark's. We can get to that in a while - because quite honestly we're going to have to revisit the issue of the tables because I'm not sure why we have the table giving Dawidowicz's outdated numbers and we should be giving a range of estimates in the tables rather than a single figure. Ideally, we wouldn't NEED footnotes in the tables because all the numbers would be given in the text with estimates, along with sources, so we wouldn't have to source the tables. Again - please say what you want to add. I do appreciate the sources being brought forward, but it isn't clear to me, at least, what (beyond the numbers for the tables) is wanted to change. I've pointed out before that this article is incredibly bloated and way over WP:ARTICLESIZE, so we really should be focusing on streamlining once I've finished checking all the sources. I can already see a few spots where we go into too much detail (the incredible detail on Karski/Vrba's various movements after escaping Auschwitz is standing out in this respect), but ... again... we need to take things slow.
Second world war europe animation small.gif
German troops in Russia, 1941 - NARA - 540155.jpg
RIAN archive 2153 After bombing.jpg
If there is a source for the Finland and Denmark deaths, it would be helpful to give that so that the information might be added. I do have an issue with the Yad Vashem Book of Names being used as a source for deaths, as they themselves say (in the FAQ here) "The Database presents, side by side, personal records each based on independent sources of information. It is therefore possible that an individual name appears multiple times in as many different sources." and ... it would be considered a WP:Primary Source, which would need a historian to interpret the information within to determine the number of victims for a specific area. Yad Vashem's secondary works, such as the articles on the Holocaust in the various countries/regions, are considered secondary sources and thus are fine to use (as, indeed, we do use them in this article).
The war definitely facilitated the Holocaust, but it did not cause it. There is some nuance there with the various historians. I cannot recall ever reading any historian say that the cause of the Holocaust was the war. The war helped make it happen, but it's not an immediate cause so, again, we don't need to cover information that is in the World War II article here unless it has a direct bearing on the Holocaust itself.
On the map, I'm now again confused. You said above "Here link to relevant map in Wikipedia with “no copyright issues”: European theatre of World War II animation map, 1939–1945 — Red: Western Allies and Soviet Union after 1941; Green: Soviet Union before 1941; Blue: Axis Powers at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II " Now, you're saying "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II Section: Axis attack on the USSR (1941) Map: European theatre of World War II with “territorial gains .. during the war”/German-occupied/controlled, and some of its photos, is directly connected with the Holocaust:" ... in that section there is only one map.... and two photos. (see them at the right). Those two photos do not depict events from the Holocaust. They aren't really relevant in this article. I am repeating myself here, but we focus on the article topic in Wikipedia. We provide links to other articles. This is pretty much how Wikipedia works, and it isn't going to change, especially here on this article where we have a multitude of relevant photos to chose from. We shouldn't be adding photos of German soldiers throwing grenades (unless they were throwing grenades at Holocaust victims, which they aren't in this photo), nor should we be showing citizens of Leningrad after being bombed out of their homes during the Siege of Leningrad. Please, can we try to understand that? The whole focus on the topic of hte article thing? Because I've a number of times to explain it and it's obviously not getting through. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Jews of Vichy Tunisia[edit]

Thanks, Henia Perlman for the clarification. So far, I cannot find a source for 250 or 260 people killed... or counts for the Book of Names compiled by Yad Vashem.

But, I found: "More than 2,500 Tunisian Jews died in a network of SS slave labor camps before the Germans withdrew" in this article. Which is about the number that you removed with this edit that had been in the article. I can find other sources that say a couple of thousand, but I'm not finding the lower number.

Do you know why there would be a difference?–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I think I've circled back around on this. This page says that about 2,575 Jews from Tunisia died during German occupation, but most of those died during air raids.
Since it's hard to find a source for the 250/260 numbers - and the one in the article is an incomplete source, what about a note: {{efn|About 2,500 people died during the German occupation, but most of those died during air raids.{{sfn|Gaon|1995|p=109}}<ref>{{cite book|author=R. Saltman|title=Sacred Humanism without Miracles: Responding to the New Atheists|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5RLHAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA44|date=24 April 2012|publisher=Springer|isbn=978-1-137-01271-5|pages=44–45, 55}}</ref>}}<ref>{{cite book|author=Michael Mewshaw|title=Between Terror and Tourism: An Overland Journey Across North Africa|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FoZaoLV0JXYC&pg=PA171|year=2010|publisher=Counterpoint|isbn=978-1-58243-434-6|page=171}}</ref>
That way people that read the several thousand number - which seems to be more prevalent have context? Just a thought.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
I put numbers to remain focus :-)

1. I allowed myself to write "Vichy-Tunisia" as it is the term used by the Tunisian historical archives, and as inference of Poznanski, who wrote: Vichy-Metropolitaine (mainland Vichy) in her book. And, besides, thousands of Jews in the French protectorate of Tunisia were French citizen and about 5,000 were Italians. All Jews of Algeria were French citizens, and still Yad Vashem and others write: Algerian Jews. An American Jew has American citizenship.

Carole, thank you so much for going into the trouble! 1. 260 victims – Yad Vahem has a table showing more accurate numbers than the current table in wiki, and shows 260. Yad Vashem is trying to reach the number 6 million, and I feel that they want to provide accurate number, to prevent deniers ..

2. Your proposition: “About 2,500 people died during the German occupation, but most of those died during air raids.” I still feel very uncomfortable with this high number. What do you think: “Between 260 and 600 Jews died in slave labor camps run by SS, during air raids, and less than 10 in death camps in Nazi-occupied Poland.” (I saw that somewhere in the table of Yad Vashem. Maybe, Karlsfeld mentions that. I really don't think that the numbers are crucial, when we compare with the Jews of Nazi Poland. And I won't pursue that issue of numbers.

3. Because one editor objected to my map proposal, I found a better map, and I hope to have a consensus: “Category:Maps of Europe under Nazi occupation File:Europe under Nazi domination.png in rectangle inside map: Europe at the height of German expansion, 1941-1942 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_under_Nazi_domination.png

Carole or Simon, who offered his help, can you please insert it? Thank you.

4. I am going over Holocaust article, because I would like Wikipedia to present correct knowledge and it is very difficult with politicized Holocaust education (the same Holocaust institution presents 2 or 3 definitions of Holocaust, confusing my students ;-) .

I am doing a lot of reading; I just read that in The Holocaust and World War II: In History and In Memory, edited by Nancy E. Rupprecht, Wendy Koenig:

“One of the first demand on Holocaust education must be that it tells the truth about the facts … A glance into the material offered for Holocaust education on the Web still leaves much to be desired … University lecturers, regretfully, also occasionally contribute to this confusion of minds with scholarly works. ….

This makes, however, these aspects of Holocaust education an easy target for deniers. … much material of dubious value has flooded the market … Let’s hope that within the course of time all dubious material will be eliminated and only teaching aids that meet the requirements that the seriousness of the subject demands will remain on the market."

Carole, thank you again!Henia Perlman (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

WW2-Holocaust-Europe.png
Holocaustdeathtoll%.png
2. Can we see sources for this information you're wanting to add? We go by sources, not by what we as editors believe.
3. The map is nice, but we already have this map in the article - which not only shows the extent of the Nazi conquests but also shows the major camps and extermination camps. So I don't see the need for a map that just shows the conquests without showing anything that is related to the Holocaust. It's not that the map isn't nice - it's that it doesn't show anything at all directly related to the Holocaust. If we didn't already have a map showing the extent of the conquests along with important Holocaust sites, then, the suggested map might be useful. It's redundant to the current map (plus we also have the second map I've shown.)
4. I'm not sure what the point of bringing up Holocaust denial is here. I'm hoping to.... once we've verified the information in the article, to expand the section on holocaust denial, as it's woefully covered right now. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the count of 250/260 vs a couple of thousand, you all are the experts on the Holocaust. I was just trying to sort out the discrepancy and better understand it now. Whatever you all thing is fine with me - whether to have a note or not. If all of the other numbers do not include air raid numbers, it's probably not needed. I think I got caught up in the difference in the numbers.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Map of Europe[edit]

Simon, sorry, I missed your post. Your deployment of sources and focus of specific points is improving rapidly. Please add page numbers wherever possible. Simon. Irondome (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to learn as much as possible, reading wiki guidelines, and following your advices. Unfortunately, box number 10 didn't have my Holocaust book.

I read that: "Perpetuation of distortions, or failure to debunk them, ill seriously hinders the ability of educators and students to derive meaningful lessons from study of the Holocaust." - Florida Holocaust Center

Thank you for your kind words. Henia Perlman (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Map of Europe[edit]

Sorry, Ea. I also missed your post. Thank you for your lengthy and helpful information. I will try to learn faster.

1. Please, can you consider deleting Dawidowicz's table and the other one with “outdated numbers,” as the table of Yad Vashem is more accurate. You can write to them, and they will email it to you.

2. I completely agree that the article is too long.

3. I am also checking if the source is saying what the text is saying; it is difficult as I don’t have all my books. But I did find that there is a citation that don’t correspond to content of text in the article.

4. The volkish section is too long. I have already mentioned that section ;-)

5. You went to wrong map; it has no name of countries. Still, because of your comments, I found another map (with no animation), connected to topic of the article, and I hope you won’t object:

“Category:Maps of Europe under Nazi occupation File:Europe under Nazi domination.png in rectangle inside map: Europe at the height of German expansion, 1941-1942

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_under_Nazi_domination.png

6. Sorry, I should have written “table” like the one by Dawidowicz, and not mention the Book of Names.

Thank you again for your comments and patience - I sincerely appreciate both! Regards.Henia Perlman (talk) 23:13, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Right now, I'm not trying to do much editing of the article (beyond fixing quotations and very occasionally culling a quote) except to make sure we're not too closely paraphrasing things. I'm still working through a huge pile of books I've gotten from the library - right now I have 70 some books out from the library. Eventually, I'll run out of books to check and then we can work on the content. But, one thing that makes editing Wikipedia hard is that it's a collaborative work, so I'm trying not to run roughshod over the work of the previous editors. It's only polite to work with what we've got and not just wipe the article out without input from others. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Jews of Vichy Tunisia. Editing the article[edit]

Sorry Carole, but I will stick with the numbers of Yad Vashem; here my new proposal:

“260 Jews died in slave labor camps run by SS, inclusive of less than 10 in death camps in Nazi-occupied Poland."

Cheers! Henia Perlman (talk) 00:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Ealdgyth - thank you for your hard work!
Oh, just saw this. If that works for others, it works for me.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Working together on Holocaust article[edit]

Ealdgyth cannot do it all alone. I am also checking citations; I did find some issues. Please, Ealdgyth, start to read Leni Yahil’s book. “It's only polite to work with what we've got and not just wipe the article out without input from others.” I agree, but we can work with what we’ve got, and still edit the article.

As an experienced former Holocaust educator, who can understand how students/public can read the current article (my former students found it hard to follow), I am suggesting that editing can be done, with reliable source and consensus, while Ealdgyth fixes quotations. One person cannot do it all.

We should “* Contextualize the history: Events of the Holocaust should be placed in historical context…Similarly, the Holocaust should be studied within its contemporaneous context … providing a greater understanding of history of the Holocaust.

  • Strive for precision of language: Because of the complexity of the history, there is a temptation … to distort the facts…Avoid this…Words … often have multiple meanings. … generalizations…tend to … distort historical reality.” ushmm

Michael Marrus in The Holocaust in History, quotes the Israeli novelist A. B. Yehoshua: “… further study will require that, generally accepted views, which, it seemed, were firmly and solidly established, be abandoned.”

Holocaust history is very politicized. We shouldn’t "give credence to Holocaust deniers," and we should "avoid any perpetuation of the appearances of distortion of the facts of the Holocaust."

“an unintended symbiotic relationship of sorts” between the representation of the Holocaust in the public sphere (to which Holocaust education largely contributes) and which he calls “the myth of the Holocaust,” and Holocaust denial.

p. 224: One of the first demand on Holocaust education must be that it tells the truth about the facts … A glance into the material offered for Holocaust education on the Web still leaves much to be desired … University lecturers, regretfully, also occasionally contribute to this confusion of minds with scholarly works.

P. 25. This makes, however, these aspects of Holocaust education an easy target for deniers. … much material of dubious value has flooded the market … Let’s hope that within the course of time all dubious material will be eliminated and only teaching aids that meet the requirements that the seriousness of the subject demands will remain on the market.”

Let's all think about the above, when we edit.

Have all a good day!Henia Perlman (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Henia, don't take this wrong, but is English your first language? And were you teaching in English or some other language? I ask because I'm finding that you're not necessarily understanding what I'm saying and this is obviously leading to some confusion. Above, with the maps, it appears you think that the two maps I listed were what I though YOU wanted to put in. However, those two maps are the ones already in the article, I was merely putting them on this page so others could see that they cover the Holocaust details much more than the map you're proposing. Also - do you think this article is supposed to give lots of context on World War II? Or are you thinking this article is supposed to be a substitute for a history class on the Holocaust? Because either of those ideas isn't what Wikipedia is. We aren't a classroom and we don't aim to write history textbooks. What is important for a textbook isn't always important for an encyclopedia article. We aren't a substitute for the various Holocaust educational websites and groups, we are an encyclopedia. I keep reapeating this, and it's getting a bit old to be the only one carrying the point on this, but its important to remember what Wikipedia is when we are working on articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with you, and didn't say it that way, but I have commented about the intention of the edits that are not in synch with Wikipedia guidelines and mode of delivering content. Much of this was said on the user talk page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Henia, I removed the animated map because it's in German, it's essentially a duplicate of the subsequent map, and it is an overuse of images in the article. I know that you like adding images, but they should chosen thoughtfully for pertinence. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Pertinence and encyclopedic nature. There is also something about not using images that duplicate information.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Henia, the improperly cited / uncited content added to the top of the World War II section in this edit has also been deleted. Since proper citing content has been mentioned a number of times in the edit summary, this talk page, and your talk page, I am sorry but I added a level 2 warning on your talk page. The need for the quote is also questionable.–CaroleHenson (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, {{U|Henia Perlman|Henia]], I agree that we don't need this quote. Without the war, their would have been no opportunity for the perpetration of the Holocaust is somewhat WP:BLUESKY, i.e it does not need pointing out and citing. As I have asked, please discuss all edits on my talkpage before you add them to areticles. Just what you intend to say, wher you want to place it in an article, and the source book, author and page. Simon. Irondome (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

World War II - removed info[edit]

I have moved this from my user talk page:

Holocaust Article - Section WWII

Good morning Carole,

I just saw today your message - I am so slow with technology (I don't know how to use a cell phone) !

You wrote: "I have no idea what you mean about me removing citation information."

Carole, I put 2 sentences, below “WWII”, which nobody removed, explaining correct link between WWII, a context, and Holocaust. Then, I found the citation by Doris Bergen, that I thought it was good to add as per wiki regulations.

I added Bergen’s citation, without using template, as I was not sure how to do it (sometimes, I could figure it out!). 

Then, Carole, you removed my 2 sentences about link between Holocaust and WWII and the citation, because I didn’t put them in template.

I would have appreciated it if you would have kept the 2 sentences and put the citation in correct template.

I still think that the my addition with reliable source is important. Can you please, reconsider and add them back with using template for citation. I am now reading Longerich who also noticed the relationship between WWII and Holocaust.

I am really really trying hard to learn, improve, and listen to suggestions. My goal is to improve wiki with collaboration so wiki is good for everybody!

I have been considered very good at presenting the Holocaust, in an encyclopedic manner, so the public (I gave lectures) and students could understand the: what, who, where, why and when (I add the how ;-)

Thank you Carole for helping me being better!Henia Perlman (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Henia Perlman,
The information and files that you had added, that I deleted from this edit was:
The Holocaust took place during World War II, and is connected with the progression of the war. Doris Bergen, in page 172 of her book, “War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust”, states: “… without war and German victories there would have been no genocide of the European Jews. The vast majority of Jews murdered by Nazi Germans – about 95% - came from outside of Germany. Without military conquests the perpetrators would never have got those victims in their hands.”
Irondome is your mentor, and as a contributor to The Holocaust article can weigh-in on whether this is appropriate for the article:
"The Holocaust took place during World War II, and is connected with the progression of the war. Historian Doris Bergen states, "… without war and German victories there would have been no genocide of the European Jews. The vast majority of Jews murdered by Nazi Germans – about 95% - came from outside of Germany. Without military conquests the perpetrators would never have got those victims in their hands.”
As a exercise in formatting citations, in the meantime, here's an example based upon your information:
<ref>{{cite book|author=Doris Bergen |title=War and Genocide: A Concise History of the Holocaust |year= | location= |publisher= |isbn= |page=172}}</ref>
What is still needed is the year, publisher, and isbn. Do you have that, if this is a helpful addition? I like to add location if I have it, but it's not needed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Bergen is used as a source in this article - so it would be good if the same edition is being used for this (IF it gets added back), the format of the citation was actually what is being used in the article. Learning to adapt to varying citation formats is a good thing for an editor. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Ealdgyth. The other cited content from Bergen is also a quote. I personally wouldn't add another quote from the same author, and I see that you're working to condense the content of the article.
If the quote is used, though, the format would be {{sfn|Bergen|2009|pp=172}}, using {{sfn}} for bibliography items. I looked it up, and the quote comes from page 172 of that edition. So, now, the only question is: is it needed / helpful?–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we need the quote or the informaiton. Too much of this article is already quotes rather than paraphrasing. But I'm not going to go against a consensus of other editors either. I just think it's not really relevant. It could easily be summarized somewhere in the "causes" section as "Without the war, the conditions for the Holocaust would not have happened." Heck, it may already be there - there's almost 21,000 words in this monster. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that it does not appear to me to be needed. For the most part, it's stating the obvious. Regarding the statistic that 95% of the murdered Jews came from countries other than Germany is an interesting point, but isn't it clear that if Germany had not occupied the other countries then the people would not have been murdered? Basically a rhetorical question, I will agree with consensus as well.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Henia, I agree that we don't need this quote. That without the war, there would have been no opportunity for the perpetration of the Holocaust is somewhat WP:BLUESKY, i.e it does not need pointing out and citing. As I have asked, please discuss all edits on my talkpage before you add them to areticles. Just what you intend to say, wher you want to place it in an article, and the source book, author and page. Simon. Irondome (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Systematically premeditated and the largest genoside in history[edit]

The Holocaust is unique in its extent, being ideologically motivated, mostly predetermined, planned out, and unique for its vast implementation in many different countries and with the participation of many different ethnicities and religions.

But the three terms: Systematically murdered, in the deadliest genocide in history, based on ideology, all well sourced, come only way later after the opening paragraph.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The article is undergoing a large and much needed work of double checking references, cutting bloat, and making sure all important areas are covered. The lead is generally the last area that needs to be worked on, since it depends on the contents of the body of the article. It makes little sense to worry over the lead (which does say those things, mostly) before the main article is cleaned up. Its entirely too subject to change at this point. (And none of those things are as clear-cut as are being made out - various other genocides can claim deadliest - since if you include the Native Americans after Columbus, you're talking 10s of millions of deaths). Nor is "predetermined" well supported by Holocaust scholars - most now would say that the genocide was not set in stone until after the invasion of the Soviet Union. And the genocide in the Ukraine in the 1930s was also based on ideology - just a different, non-racial one. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The lead in Holocaust article. Uniqueness[edit]

Hi, 1. I completely agree with Ealdgyth that "The lead is generally the last area that needs to be worked on, since it depends on the contents of the body of the article."

2. Pashute, I strongly suggest that your read Rethinking the Holocaust and the articles by Yehuda Bauer (just google his name): he explained very clearly why he does not thing that the Holocaust is not unique, but is unprecedented. I respect Bauer a lot for his thoughtful analysis and comparing genocides. I always end my Holocaust class discussing the Native Americans after Columbus.

3. Also Bauer states that the Holocaust didn't have to happen.

It's so interesting to discuss the Holocaust, because it is such a complex subject. I have taught it and research it for almost 20 years, and I know that I don't know and understand everything.

Regards.Henia Perlman (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Simon: Henia is following your instructions[edit]

Following your instructions, I have not edited articles, but I did discuss some issues, and presented very politely, suggestions in the "Talk" of the article.

Thank you again for being my mentor.

Regards.Henia Perlman (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Somebody is editing the Holocaust article: Uniqueness and Wannsee[edit]

Sorry InternetArchiveBot, but I have no technology skills - at all!

I don't know how to see alerts when somebody is editing. So, only today I noticed important modifications. I will mention the most important ones in the too long section on the "Wannsee Conference."

1. WIKI ARTICLE: “The conference's initial purpose was to discuss plans for a comprehensive solution to the "Jewish question in Europe." Heydrich was put in overall charge of "final solution" throughout Europe.[citation needed] “

KERSHAW more accurately wrote: “Heydrich opened the meeting by recapitulating that Goring had given him responsibility … for preparing the ‘final solution of the European Jewish question.’

THE PROTOCOL: “At the beginning of the discussion Chief of the Security Police and of the SD, SS-Obergruppenfuehrer Heydrich, reported that the Reich Marshal had appointed him delegate for the preparations for the final solution of the Jewish question in Europe and pointed out that this discussion had been called for the purpose of clarifying fundamental questions.”

2. PROTOCOL: The Reichsfuhrer-SS and the Chief of the German Police (Chief of the Security Police and the SD) was entrusted with the official central handling of the final solution of the Jewish question without regard to geographic borders.”

“without regard to geographic borders.” LONGERICH quoted in this section, like many other scholars wrote: The “Final Solution to the Jewish Question” was the Nazi code name for the elimination of Jews. For the first time in history, the annihilation of a people had become official government policy.” (p. 305-310) (Ealdgyth, please, double check), Longerich does not mention even once the words “the Jewish question in Europe” in his analysis of the Wannsee meeting.

Other sources: “In January 1942 a conference was held in Wannsee, a suburb of Berlin, in order to coordinate the implementation of the “Final Solution of the Jewish Question”, the codename for the plan to murder all Jews within reach. “ (YV)

On January 20, 1942, 15 high-ranking Nazi Party and German government officials gathered at a villa in the Berlin suburb of Wannsee to discuss and coordinate the implementation of what they called the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question." (ushmm)

3. WIKI ARTICLE: a final solution that would involve some 11 million Jews living not only in territories then controlled by Germany, but throughout continental Europe, Ireland, Great Britain, French North Africa, and Turkey.[135] = Longerich 2010, p. 307

LONGERICH (Ealdgyth, please, double check): “This list {in a statistical addendum to the minutes} not only includes Jews living in areas under German control , but also those of Great Britain, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, and Turkey. Included in the 700,000 Jews for unoccupied France are those of the North African colonies". p. 307

There are also issues with citations in the definition, and I don't have all the books (Ealdgyth, please check), and other important issues. I am sure that all editors want to see a neutral article.

Regards. Henia Perlman (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

again, this is an overview article. The details of who gave Heydrich authority, how wide that authority was, and an exact listing of how many Jews were included in unoccupied France are all details that belong in the article on the conference itself, not in an overview article on the entire Holocaust. WP:SUMMARY is our guiding principle here. I just spent three days carefully culling out unneeded details from this article. I'm sure I haven't gotten the mix just right, we're still missing some subjects that need coverage - Holocaust denial, memorials, more on historiography, Other things aren't weighed right - too much of the death camps coverage is on Auschwitz, we need a bit more on other occupied countries, the mass killings in Russia are skimped, the reaction after the war needs more, etc. but the solution isn't to add more detail to sections on single events. As for the definition - we need to cover ALL the views of scholars. This means that of necessity we will cover definitons that we as people may not agree with. We can't let our own opinions on the various controversies influence what the Wikipedia article says. Ideally, no one will ever know what a given editors opinion is on any controversy. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I think we may also have an issue with understanding how we include information. We do not generally just string together quotes from various sources. Instead we paraphrase and summarize sources. So it isn't inaccurate to summarize point 1 as "Heydrich was granted authority..." when the source says that Goring gave Heydrich authority...in fact, we are supposed to do that. If we get too close to the language of the source, it's a bad thing called "close paraphrasing".
I'm also going to have to beg folks' indulgence... my stepdaughter is expecting her first child and we're currently out of town over with her. She's having a lot of contractions, but not quite into full labor, so I've kinda had to stop in mid project here. I'm working from a tablet mostly, so I'm slow...Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Regarding your comments, Henia Perlman, about The Holocaust article, you may want to assume good faith about the people that have contributed to the article. It's insulting to say that the article is not neutral without clear evidence. I am not at all seeing that there is an intention to reflect one side at the expense of another.
For what it's worth, most people don't express their background and it seems that there are quite knowledgeable people working on the article - both from the per perspective of history and Wikipedia guidelines. You don't really know who you are insulting and what their background is.
I think the issue is that you have clear ideas about what you'd like to add to articles, how you want the information presented, and how much detail that you think should be in the articles. Unfortunately, though, your approaches are generally against Wikipedia guidelines regarding brevity, presenting multiple prevailing opinions, summarizing content, not repeating information that is in related sub-articles, etc.
From what I can tell, Ealdgyth, has done an excellent job condensing and reviewing the article, summarizing the content, being historically relevant, seeking brevity and avoiding overuse of quotations, and following Wikipedia guidelines, like ensuring that content is properly cited with reliable sources.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Apologies. Editing with collaboration[edit]

Hi all,

1. I apologize: I should have said that 1000s of my students and members of the general public have told me that the Holocaust article in wiki is not neutral and not well written - we are writing for the regular person. Now, that I am retired, but old with issues connected to memory, I decided to use my expertise to try improving the article, with input.

2. I have to express my background, and I have to respectfully ask some editors not to bite, bully, and threaten a newcomer who is a person who is a bit slow. I do not have anymore a mentor, because, as I am, I learned better from many persons. I am requesting to be kindly patient with me, and to explain in plain, and not wiki language, where I erred, and how to correct.

3. My issue: to present a brief article, “presenting multiple prevailing opinions, summarizing content …being historically relevant,” and following Wikipedia guidelines with your help and the best of my ability.

4. I appreciate the hard work that one person, Ealdgyth, has been doing, but let’s not forget the word “collaboration.”

I am thankful to the persons who had appreciated my additions/modifications and even took the time to put my quotation in the right template thinking that what is important is the content.

Warm regards. Have a wonderful week-end!Henia Perlman (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Henia, there has been so much discussion about these items before. In theory the points that you make are good points. I would say that we all want an article that has a neutral point of view -- which in Wikipedia world means that prevailing views are presented, some of which may be against our personal opinions. When it gets to actual edits there have been consistent issues that have been mentioned many times, but I am happy to summarize in the "Reminders" section of your talk page if you'd like. Please let me know if this would be helpful.
The key point that I would like to address is collaboration. On an article with visibility such as this one, I think it's very safe to say that there is implied collaboration when so many edits have been made to an article... and if no one is raising an issue. Which to me is implied collaboration. I have been watching the nature of the changes and have not had concerns for the changes that I have read.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Explanation for my modification of section Wannsee Conference[edit]

I am welcoming your input, comments, and corrections of English, to make it a better section. Thank you.

I decided to post a modification, after I read Carole’s message: there is implied collaboration when so many edits have been made to an article... and if no one is raising an issue. Which to me is implied collaboration.” I decided to post a modification today, a modification I had prepared sometime ago, after I took “French North Africa” from the Wannsee section, and Carole put it back. Carole’s move challenged me to double check the source, as Ealdgyth correctly insists on doing, Longuerich’s book, p. 307.

Here below my reasons for the modification:

1. Longuerich’s book, p. 307: “This list {in a statistical addendum to the minutes} not only includes Jews living in areas under German control , but also those of Great Britain, Ireland, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain, and Turkey. Included in the 700,000 Jews for unoccupied France are those of the North African colonies." So the Jews of French North Africa were not included in the 11 million, as implied in the current version. It seems to me that it was important to correctly present Longerich's writing.I condensed, as the reader can go to the main article.

In our article: “that would involve some 11 million Jews living not only in territories controlled by Germany, but throughout continental Europe, Ireland, Great Britain, French North Africa, and Turkey.” It seems to me that this sentence is quite similar to: “which would embrace as many as 11 million Jews across Europe (stretching, outside German current territorial control, as far as Britain and Ireland, …, Turkey, and French north African colonies)” – Kershaw, in The Holocaust, ed. Niewyk, p. 35.

2. Reliable sources show that the definition of the FS as mentioned at Wannsee, in my modification, is the prevailing view:

In January 1942 a conference was held in Wannsee, a suburb of Berlin, in order to coordinate the implementation of the “Final Solution of the Jewish Question”, the code name for the plan to murder all Jews within reach. http://www.yadvashem.org/holocaust/about/final-solution-beginning

“The Wannsee Conference was held near Berlin on January 20, 1942. High- ranking German officials convened to deliberate the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question”, the code name for the elimination of Jews. For the first time in history, the annihilation of a people had become official government policy.” Peter, Longerich. House of the Wannsee Conference, The Wannsee Conference. House of the Wannsee Conference, Berlin 2012.

“… the Final Solution as it is now understood—the systematic attempt to murder every last Jew within the German grasp. Browning, The Origins of the Final Solution: The Evolution of Nazi Jewish Policy, September 1939 – March 1942.

3 "Heydrich also made it clear what was understood by the phrase 'Final Solution': the Jews were to be annihilated by a combination of forced labour and mass murder."[156] I took it out to shorten the article, and because Longerich’s thesis is that the FS started in the fall of 939, and there was a radicalization after 1941. Two years, after he wrote his book, he clearly states in 2012: “The Wannsee Conference was held near Berlin on January 20, 1942. High- ranking German officials convened to deliberate the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question”, the code name for the elimination of Jews. For the first time in history, the annihilation of a people had become official government policy.” Peter, Longerich. House of the Wannsee Conference, The Wannsee Conference. House of the Wannsee Conference, Berlin 2012.

The Wannsee protocol did not just list the Jewish communities of Germany or German-occupied territories, but was envisioning the final solution of the Jewish question without regard to geographic borders. - Krauss

So, I thought that it would be good to modify the text so it correctly reflects Longerich's writing, and I condensed it, since one can go to the main article.

Again, I welcome your input, because I maybe wrong, and somebody can bring arguments that I didn't think of.

Thank you. Have a great day.Henia Perlman (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Henia, you removed a sourced sentence that actually is important, and added a source in French to the first bit, while expanding information that really is redundant. While I appreciate the effort to source something, doing it with a French source is not going to help most readers of this article, who are presumed to want information in English, otherwise they'd be reading the French Wikipedia. Of course, I'm on the road and can't really edit, but I do not find your edit a complete improvement. When I'm home, I'll check the edit against the source. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Broken sentence[edit]

I found a broken sentence (introduced here) while reviewing the recent changes: "Another upriding an uprising in the Białystok Ghetto." It's in the "Armed resistance" section. I didn't touch it because the intended change isn't clear to me. Regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

should be "Another uprising occurred in the ...." sorry about that, thanks for catching it. Since I'm in the car on the way to se the granddaughter, could you kindly fix it? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, that was quick. :-) Sure. Done! Robby.is.on (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
have you ever driven through Central Illinois? It's flat as a pancake, and very boring.....Ealdgyth - Talk 00:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Heh, can't say I've ever set foot on the Americas. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Final Solution[edit]

I took out the title of this section as it is part of WWII. Where do you suggest, if needed, to put this title, as there are different views when the FS was implemented?Henia Perlman (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was fine where it was, as it broke up the long section nicely. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Ealdgyth, I am ready to listen actively.

1. Can you please explain to me why the “sourced sentence … actually is important”? I read in Wiki, that it is nice to explain to others the reasons for modifications. Somebody changed without explanation.

2. My link is not for the reader to read the article in French, but to see what the Nazi regime considered “Europe”. And I did specify that in the note. I am trying to read the article from the point of view of average readers.

3. “expanding information that really is redundant” – Can you please specify? You may be right.

4. I just saw about the Final Solution: “I thought it was fine where it was, as it broke up the long section nicely.”

I agree that it will good to break the long section, but you are creating a section, as if the FS is not part of WWII. We can think together how to break the long section.

I do really want to listen to your reasons, understand them, and be convinced.

A boy? A girl?Henia Perlman (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the previous editors didn't use a chronological narrative, but a thematic structure.

From my experience with average learners, I found out that they like the chronological structure, as adopted by most historians of the Holocaust and other historical subjects. A chronological narrative is also the national recommendation.

I have no intention of rewriting the article! I am just trying to improve and work with what is there.Henia Perlman (talk) 00:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I do like "Wanessee Conference and Final Solution"!Henia Perlman (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
please stop wiping out my posts. Please. I cannot fix them on a tablet! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry! You wrote that, in the past, it was written: Wannsee conference and the Final Solution, and you wanted to shorten that. I think Wannsee conference and the Final Solution is a good title. I am now leaving the Talk, and let you decide.Henia Perlman (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Henia,
You've been asked to work with a mentor, or at the very least talk about the changes before making them to the article, and still went ahead and made unhelpful changes. I have reverted your edits.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Modifying the Holocaust article[edit]

1. I explained, at length the reasons for the changes made in good faith to improve the encyclopedia. And I am discussing issues with Ealdgyth.

a. It seems to me, that I didn’t make "unhelpful changes". Can one explain to me the reasons? From my experience, I know that the average reader would like to see a map of Europe in 1942 relevant to the Wannsee Conference, even in French.

b. I pointed out to what seems to me plagiarism of Kershaw, and an inaccurate account of Longerich’s text.

2. Vandalism and threats to block me - It seems to me that there has been constant threats against a newcomer, who has always been stating that she is making a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. Other editors can notice that now. I know how to put a reference with the correct template, and provide a reliable source.

3. “talk about the changes before making them to the article” – Wiki allows editor to modify text with reliable sources.

4. “You've been asked to work with a mentor” – I have explained that I am a person twho learns from comments by many editors. It is in good faith, that I carefully try to modify the text.

I would like to read from other editors.

Thank you and have all a wonderful day!Henia Perlman (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I have to actively protest at being accused of plagiarism. I did not have whatever source you are referring to in front of me when I worked on that section...since I can't even figure out from your phrase what the source is, given the incomplete nature of your source citations. As to the other points, I have to say that people have been very patient with you, but eventually it gets old to be cleaning up and having to deal with bad editing behavior. You still haven't figured out how to use talk pages properly, you continue to garble sources and citations, and yorure very quick to accuse others of things. People are trying to help you, but you aren't really learning...Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Modifying by taking out "German-occupied"[edit]

I took out “German occupied” from subtitles because

a. I am not aware of any source using this wording.

b. The Hungarian government started to discriminate against the Jews in 1941 before it was occupied by the troops of Third Reich in 1944.

I am ready to actively listen to objections. Thank you.Henia Perlman (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

but we only discuss the time after Hungary was occupied, so it is correct. We dont have to have a source for headings and I've seen the phrase used for the situation in these countries. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that the section is about Hungary before it was occupied: "Germany's allies Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and Finland were pressured to introduce antisemitic measures, but for the most part they did not comply until they were compelled to do so I am putting back my modification.Henia Perlman (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
so Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, belgium and France weren't occupied? This section is also woefully skimpy and will need expansion to cover more details on these countries, plus all other occupied countries except Poland and the Soviet Union, which have their own sections? It appears to me that "occupied" better fits all those countries.also, may I bring your attention to the essay WP:BRD, which is an excellent example to follow. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I reverted it again and gave you your final warning, Henia.
Please discuss items rather than forging ahead. You have a mentor who has offered to help you. I am happy to help you. Please discuss and attempt to attain consensus or compromise rather than making edits.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

No mentor. Help in improving my modifications in Holocaust article[edit]

I do not have a mentor, and I just ask sometimes for help.

I welcome the help of all editors!

I am kindly asking your patience for my technology and style issues.

I appreciate it very much when an editor sends me to the relevant wiki page.

I will listen actively to all comments of content to my modifications, aimed in good faith at improving the article.

Thank you.Henia Perlman (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

That's too bad about no longer having a mentor.
I am very happy to hear that you are happy to actively listen to comments and I will move ahead with an earlier offer I made to you to summarize some of those points on your talk page... as they are throughout this and other pages at this point.
To get around technological and style issues, I am happy to help format citations and content, as I and your previous mentor have mentioned before as well. So, there's no reason to post content before ensuring that it is "article ready". That's the way to manage what you describe as your "technology and style issues".–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Plagiarism in Wannsee section[edit]

Ealdgyth, I didn't accuse you of plagiarism.

I did assume that it was a previous editor who wrote the paragraph on Wannsee.

"you are very quick to accuse others of things": Looking again at comments directly at me, I still feel that I have been abused, bullied and threatened, when I was a newcomer and acting in good faith.

Thank you for your patience.Henia Perlman (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Accusation of vandalism[edit]

In my talk page, one editor accused me of vandalism, and warned me that I would be blocked.

I do not vandalize.

I am making a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia.

I told the editor that It seems to me that she/he is abusing me and threatening me, when I am acting in good faith.

I have been working very hard finding reliable sources to use on my modifications.

I decided to be involved, because I retired.

I feel that I can positively contribute, because of my historical expertise and my experience with the average reader, with the true spirit of collaboration, and help with technology and wiki rules.

"When in doubt, edit! " And that's what I am trying to do, with use of reliable source, and actively listening to comments to my modifications.

Thank you.Henia Perlman (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page, I am sorry that you are feeling bullied. I do not want you to feel that way and hope that is something that we can work through.
Your intention to actively listen is very encouraging, though.
The "When in doubt, edit!" does not apply if you have been receiving warnings for unhelpful edits. I am 100% sure that you are not trying to vandalize the articles you've worked on. But, you have been actively going against many conversations about the ways in which your edits are unhelpful. That is disruptive editing, and I have been posting disruptive editing warnings.
I am taking you at your word that you will actively listen and work on the summary of the things that have been mentioned to you.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

German-occupied Poland[edit]

Hi all,

I was wrong to have changed this subtitle, created by previous editors.

We do have to present the relevant history, as pointed out to me by editor Carole:

On September 28, 1939, Poland was divided. The western and central part of Poland was ruled by Nazi Germany, while the eastern pat was occupied by the Soviet Union. Thus, it was very much relevant to use: German-occupied Poland.

I welcome your comments and objections to my good faith contributions in the Talk page.

De la discussion, vient la lumière: from the discussion, comes the light.

Thank you. Have a great day!Henia Perlman (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Other German-occupied countries[edit]

1. I just posted a contribution about the Jews in Shanghai.

I welcome your comments, and I am ready to discuss your proposals for changes in content and style.

2. I will also appreciate help in putting template for links (this time I couldn't do it!): In Shanghai, there were about 20,000 Jewish refugees from Nazi-occupied Europe, because they could emigrate there without a visa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Jewish_Refugees_Museum

After the Wannsee conference, Hitler’s Germany sent SS-Colonel Joseph Meisinger, the “Butcher of Warsaw to Shanghai, and forced the Japanese ruler, an ally of the Third Reich, to put all the Jews in a ghetto, to be called the Hongkew ghetto. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Ghetto

3. Following Ealdgyth's suggestion, I would like to discuss the changement of the subtitle to "Other countries" as the current section is presenting a narrative about Jews living in Nazi occupied countries and countries that are allies. Besides, we must present all relevant history.

Thank you.

Looking forward for your input. Henia Perlman (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the edit where you added uncited content. You know that content is supposed to be cited and I offered to format citation information for you. I am not posting a request to block you because you have continued to ignore wikipedia guidelines, regardless of the warnings you have received.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Shanghai without citations[edit]

So sorry!

1. I pasted the wrong post without citations, and I have to find the correct one, because I have always posted with citation (temperature here was 105!).

I am looking in my comuter for the posting on Shanghai with citations, as I have done it in the past.

2. I did ask to discuss with me comments, before reverting my post.

3. Frankly, I have every reason to feel harassed, when I have shown that I am actively listening, and reading wiki rules: a. I have politely asked editor Carole, to "talk" to me only in Talk of the article. But, she continues to post messages in my user talk. b. She was the first one to immediately revert my good faith contribution, posted without citation, instead of contacting me via Talk of the article: Henia, can you please add citations?

4. I am also making the effort to read as much as possible material in wiki. And I found that: "Reverting a contribution may be appropriate. However, reverting good-faith actions of other editors can also be disruptive and may lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing."

Thank you for your kind attention, and I welcome constructive comments from all editors. Henia Perlman (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Good faith only goes so far, though. It also isn't others job to follow around and clean up after other editors. I would have reverted your addition not only for the for the lack of citations, but also the formatting issues and the tone of the addition. We cannot call someone a butcher without a source. Nor is calling someone that encyclopedic tone. Nor do we need a paragraph on the Shanghai situation in an overview article on the entire Holocaust, so it had WP:UNDUE issues. And it made no sense, because it said that Meisinger went to Japan and forced the Japanese ruler to put the refugees into a ghetto, but the next sentencece contradicted the previous sentence and said he Japanese Ruler ignored the Nazis. Which was itt - was he forced or did he ignore? This is the sort of problems that keep recurring ... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I have asked you to work with me regarding making sure that the content is "article ready" due to your history of edits and the fact that you have received so many warnings about your edits. I am trying to keep you from being blocked.
Would you please post what you want to add here, rather than posting it to the article and I will work on getting it ready? Please.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Carole for your help! I just reposted before I read the two above messages. Here your message for your kind formatting:

In Shanghai, there were about 20,000 Jewish refugees from Nazi-occupied Europe, because they could emigrate there without a visa.[1] [2] After the Wannsee conference, Hitler’s Germany sent SS-Colonel Joseph Meisinger, the “Butcher of Warsaw to Shanghai, Norman Goda The Holocaust: Europe, the World, and the Jews, 1918 – 1945 Pearson, 2013 p. 267

But, the Japanese government ignored the Nazis, and didn’t murder the Jews, Yehuda Bauer, Rethinking the Holocaust 89

who left Shanghai after 1945. http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%206019.pdf

2. Shanghai is not undue weight and sources mention it even in overview

Thank you Carole! Henia Perlman (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Henia, I have been offering to format your citations for quite some time. You pushed ahead after the final warning and the messages here on the talk page. As you likely saw on your talk page, I have submitted a request to block your account.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Henia Perlman: Please add things with the references in place; formatting can be fixed, but uncited material, especially if it appears defamatory, is reverted. Yes, this did happen and should be mentioned in this article, but briefly. We have coverage of it at for example Abraham Kaufman, Jewish settlement in the Japanese Empire, and Josef Albert Meisinger, and yes he was nicknamed the 'Butcher of Warsaw' (note that you need to close your quote marks). My knowledge comes from an acquaintance who was a Jewish survivor of Manchuria, rather thatn from study; in your opinion do we have it adequately covered at Josef Albert Meisinger#Activities in Shanghai and Japan? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ Longerich|2010|p=391
  2. ^ Martin|1985|p=1181

Sorry Carole mistake in citation[edit]

Thank you Carole for your help! I just reposted before I read the two above messages. Here your message for your kind formatting:

In Shanghai, there were about 20,000 Jewish refugees from Nazi-occupied Europe, because they could emigrate there without a visa.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

I am happy to see that people do want my contribution.

I have to go now, as I am traveling. Thank you again.Henia Perlman (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Status of artcle[edit]

This article is generally on my watch list, but I took it off recently, due to the on-going disputes. However, if editors here need a 3rd party opinion on a specific point, please feel free to ping me. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

New Holocaust definition[edit]

I changed the definition of Holocaust, to one which looks more relevant and appropriate to its cultural background.

I also changed a sentence in the next paragraph as follow: From 1941 to 1945, Jews were systematically murdered in a genocide, which was part of a larger event including the persecution and murder of other peoples in Europe. Under the coordination of the SS, with directions from the highest leadership of the Nazi Party, every arm of Germany's bureaucracy was involved in both the logistics and the carrying out of the mass murder. Killings took place throughout German-occupied Europe, as well as within Nazi Germany, and across all territories controlled by its allies, OR in the sphere of Nazi influence.

I welcome your comments, and I am ready to actively listen to them.

Thank you. Henia Perlman (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

You added (in the lead) a definition that is distinctly fringe and directly contradicts what's in the article body. You added it without any source. You added it with a number of grammatical mistakes. You added it with content (including the clergy and Christians as a group) that is nowhere supported in the text of the article body and is not supported by any definition I've ever seen except on the very fringe of scholarship. This leaves aside that you're supposed to be working on figuring which options would allow you to avoid being blocked. At this point, I'm beginning to lose paitence with the idea that you are really listening to what others are telling you. Others are telling you that your bold edits need to stop for a while so you can learn more about Wikipedia culture and norms. Instead, you continue adding information without sources and with formatting and grammar errors to a very very high profile article. (This ignores the POV pushing of a definition not embraced by most scholars.) With all of those problems (and that's just scratching the surface), I've reverted you. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Regarding Christians and clery, a note about why might be in order. I would not say it is fringe, I think usually the Catholics are counted as "ethnic Poles" - but this depends on who you ask, whether they feel "Pole" or "Catholic" — there is a technical, definition-based reason why Christians are usually not counted as a group, but the sources do mention "Christians are not counted as a group because..." my intuition is there will be at least some debate about Catholics. The general scholarly view at this time is that Christians, as a group, were targetted selectively according to come sources (including the Columbia source, I can pull it out again if necessary.) But whether or not they are counted depends on whether by Holocaust you mean the Final Solution, or the broader campaign of violence and war crimes on the Eastern front. Nothing I have read is especially clear about this and defining the Holocaust is not easy at all - any edits should be made very carefully.Seraphim System (talk) 15:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
We should not be putting the broadest definition as the very first sentence in the lead - that is giving too much weight to a viewpoint among scholars that is not shared by all of them. To be quite frank, the lead is the LAST thing we need to worry about - since it needs to reflect the body of the article, it needs to wait for final polishing until the whole article is pretty well polished and finalized. There is plenty of work to do, but the lead right now I think reflects at least something we can live with until the whole article is in better shape. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I definitely agree, the lede should follow the body. As a note, I don't think its that much different then what we have now which is the broad defintion. There seem to be two meanings of the word which are fairly widely accepted - under the first definition, the Holocaust begins in 1933 with the Nuremberg Laws and includes everything that we would consider to be part of the genocide against the Jewish nation. So, it is another word for the Nazi genocide against the Jews. The other, which is slightly fuzzier, mainly turns around who should be counted in the Holocaust figure—here, scholars are reluctant to discount other groups and individuals who suffered the same atrocities, especially on the Eastern front where the worst atrocities happened. The 11 million figure is pretty widely accepted at this point, there are even higher figures which remain fringe. But the article should come first, connecting historical Christian theological anti-semitism to the racial ideology of the Nazis for example is WP:OR, and it's not supported by most scholarly sources, the section heading Anti-semitism and Racism is itself problematic. The issue of the Catholic Church and the Holocaust is quite complex, but only discussed in passing in this article. This sentence is pretty low-level for a Wikipedia article: Throughout the Middle Ages in Europe, Jews were subjected to antisemitism based on Christian theology, which blamed them for rejecting and killing Jesus. Seraphim System (talk) 16:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Ealdgyth reverted Henia's posting of Holocaust definition[edit]

Here the definition which I think better fit the body of the article, and was used by the US Senate, the ushmm, Elie Wiesel, Niewyk’s The Holocaust, 2003 (quite similar), Merriam-Webster dictionary:

The Holocaust,[a] was the ideological persecution of millions of Jews, Christians, and other Undesirables (blacks, the Romani, physically and mentally disabled, some of the Slavic people, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Soviet prisoners of war, political dissidents, and others), who were targeted by the Nazi regime and its collaborators, between the years of 1933-1945, for racial, political, ideological and behavioral reasons. The primary target/victims were the Jews, wherever Nazi Germany and its collaborators could find them in the world. By war’s end, approximately six million Jews (two thirds of European Jewry - one-third of the Jewish people), and millions of others had perished in the Holocaust. Hundreds of Jewish communities in Europe disappeared forever in the Holocaust of the Jewish people, also referred to as the the Shoah,[b]. A narrower definition of Holocaust includes only the Jews as victims of Nazi ideology: The Holocaust was the systematic persecution and murder of six million Jews by Hitler’s Germany and its collaborators, and the near destruction of European Jewry.

I welcome your comments.

I was told that one person shouldn't single-hand edit the whole article without listening to comments. Ealdgyth is doing that.

I did mention, that I would like to add the citations that Ealdgyth couldn't find. I asked Carole to help me format the citations and the relevant modifications. But, it seems to me that her offer is changing.

Some of you may know that Carole made a request to block me, just following my posting about Shanghai Jews without citations.

Thank you for your kind attention. Henia Perlman (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dawidowicz 1986, p. xxxvii.
(edit conflict)
I posted this message at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Henia - the correct procedure is to address the comments I made above. Not to start a new section on the talk page and ignore the issues I pointed out with your edit. This is not listening to others when they engage with you, but rather trying to find someone else and ignoring the concerns brought up. Please take the time to engage with the issues I raised, because why should I bother to keep pointing out why you got reverted when you just ignore the reasons given? I stand by my comments above. I do see that you removed "clergy" but there are still other problems with your edit, and it reflects a definition embraced by a very small proportion of the scholarship. We cannot just present one definition as there are many different ones. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
We had again an edit conflict, as I was writing a note addressing your issues. I am slow, and it took time for me to write them. :::Here they are:
Discussing Ealdgyth's arguments to revert the new definition of Holocaust
1. "You added (in the lead) a definition that is distinctly fringe and directly contradicts what's in the article body."
Fact - Other sources use it: the ushmm, and is quite similar to the one in Niewyk’s The Holocaust, 2003.
It is also similar to definitions by the US Senate, Merriam-Webster dictionary.
I have never seen a definition such the one in the article.
I think that it is the current definition that "contradicts what's in the article body".
3. The current definition also has no sources. I think that you took them out.
4. I didn’t write it.
5. I took the clergy out, since it is not in the article body.
I am ready to actively listen to comments from other editors, besides Ealdgyth, Carole and some others.
I have admitted when I have been wrong.
Thank you for your kind attention. Henia Perlman (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I forgot to mention that Elie Wiesel, za"l, used the definition of Holocaust inclusive of Jews and other undesirables.
Please, your comments, but not too fast, as I have to go.
Thank you. Henia Perlman (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
Henia, I have debated whether it makes sense to respond to these comments, but for clarity, here goes:
To your comment: I was told that one person shouldn't single-hand edit the whole article without listening to comments. Ealdgyth is doing that. Ealdgyth is absolutely not doing that. You are continuing to make controversial and improper edits without discussing it on the talk page first.
Regarding your comment I did mention, that I would like to add the citations that Ealdgyth couldn't find. I asked Carole to help me format the citations and the relevant modifications. But, it seems to me that her offer is changing. My offer did not change, it was always in the context of one of the two options proposed at the ANI where you would request edits to the article on the talk page - my offer was to help get the edits "article ready" for this talk page. You haven't wanted to discuss the changes first, so I recommended the second option to work on other articles first with another user until you got the hang of the guidelines.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
At this point, let's please await the feedback at the Administrator's noticeboard.–CaroleHenson (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
(ec) The lead does not NEED sources. The definition is described in the section of the article titled "Definition". That's where the sources are. That's where the lead draws its information from for the definition. This is basic Wikipedia 101. There ARE sources in the article body - yes, I took the sources out of the lead because ... we avoid putting citations in the lead. When I put in the definition section - I copied the whole section in the lead that was about the definition into the definition section. So, no, the current lead definition does not contradict what's in the body since the body text was built off the lead text. Please ... this is what makes things so difficult and frustrating ... you are trying to do things when you don't know how we do things in Wikipedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Agree with that. The order & way the two alternative broad & narrow definitions are put in the existing (Ealdgyth) version seems more typical to me. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm avoiding commenting on Henia's edits except to say that Ealdgyth did the right thing by reverting them. I really just wanted to chime in concerning sources in the lead. I fully support the guidelines about the lead, and used to believe that no lead ever needed sources because in a properly constructed article material in the lead would only summarize information already sourced in the body. While I still believe this, in fact the word "need" is kind of the crux here, because I used to think the guideline militated against sources in the lead, but it doesn't, really. Here's what WP:CITELEAD says: Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Given the ability of this topic to attract controversy (not to mention disruption) I think this is one article which probably should have sources in the lead. I believe that any refs in the lead should should be invocations of named references defined later in the body. That is, all lead refs should contain only <ref name="refname" /> and no other content. This is on purpose so that no source in the lead can be uniquely there, and if anyone removes the full, named ref later in the body at some later point, the ref in the lead will immediately go red with an H:CERNT error to call attention to it. In addition, since the lead is a summary, lead refs should reuse the named body ref for the same reason the body did. I suppose I should really put all that on the Talk page of the WP:LEAD guideline, because all this is just my opinion and you don't have to follow it, but this is my new feeling about sources in the lead, although I used to be against them universally, I no longer am for articles like this one, which I think would benefit from them, if done in a careful way so that nothing new is introduced and all ref usage reflects their usage in the body. Mathglot (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with having refs after we work through the rest of the article. I'll point out though, that we're using Template:Sfn, so we don't do named refs. But the principle is the same. I just think we should put off any refs until after we get the article into shape so that we have a chance at a stable version to be putting refs on. I'll add that I can really only see the need for refs on the most challengeable information - death totals and the like. Given the complexity of the topic, the lead is going to take a while to get right (although I do think the current lead (which is largely the result of the editors who came before me, I've done only tweaks) isn't that awful.) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:38, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Preserving here so we can find a source...[edit]

"According to Otto Ohlendorf the "Einsatzgruppen had the mission to protect the rear of the troops by killing the Jews, Gypsies, Communist functionaries, active Communists, and all persons who would endanger security. In practice, their victims were nearly all defenseless Jewish civilians and not a single Einsatzgruppe member was killed in action during these operations." - need a source for this... parking this here until we find one. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Ideology and scale-section[edit]

Shouldn´t this section also mention the number of murdered jews in Nazi-Germany itself? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The enumeration of the victims is down lower in the article - the "ideology and scale" section is part of distinctive features section, so we are just trying to point out with broad brushes the extreme scale of the situation, to explicate why the scale was one distinctive feature of this genocide versus others. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Good enough, thanks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).