Talk:Holocaust trivialization

Definition

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is "Holocaust Trivialization" really a Noteworthy?

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

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

I'm going to make an addendum to what I've previously posted because just yesterday, with the new awareness of "Holocaust Trivialization" in mind, I note that President Donald Trump's meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin has the political realm all abuzz with comparing Trump's meeting to "Pearl Harbor" and "Kristallnacht", and it occurred to me that comparing whatever political upheaval is taking place at the moment to some historical calamity, disaster, or crime, etc... is a commonly used literary technique, and it functions no differently than what could be described as "Holocaust Trivialization". Which then begs the question, "What is it about trivializing the Holocaust, that is so different, unique, or extreme (or whatever) that makes this narrow subsection of political discussion worthy of it's own, standalone article? The Holocaust wasn't the worst atrocity to take place in human history, and it's not even the most recent. I'd like someone to explain why this subject is so noteworthy that it merits it's own article, when other examples of the "inappropriate comparisons to less significant events" do not.2605:6000:6947:AB00:D16B:F4F4:1B1C:309E (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a very short article. I suggest adding it to the end of the Holocaust article (Awareness) or as an aspect of the Holocaust denial article. Jontel (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Disagree, it would get lost there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

NPOV concerns about article.

Here are my concerns about the article as it stands:

• It states "Many authors argue that a metaphorical (or otherwise comparative) use of the word Holocaust constitutes Holocaust trivialization, and many consider such uses offensive" without actually stating who these authors are, which is weasel words according to Wikipedia policy. I would change it to "A number of authors, such as..." with specific notable authors that have made this argument specifically mentioned by name.
• The central issue here is whether any other uses of the term holocaust, such as in American Holocaust, Armenian Holocaust, African Holocaust, environmental holocaust, nuclear holocaust, etc. are valid or do they attempt to make comparisons that are inappropriate and unjustified. A such there needs to more content in the article discussing this point of contention, especially from notable sources defending the use of the terms in other contexts. Does the fact the genocide of 6 million of Jews by the hands of the Nazi's during WWII was and is called "The Holocaust" give that event sole (or mostly sole) rights to the term holocaust? The debate over that question should be better fleshed out in the article. Many dictionary's define holocaust (lower case word) as " a mass slaughter of people" or something variation of that, which would mean that other genocides could also qualify if we rely on the dictionary alone for justification of alternative uses. But there is also the argument that the uniquely horrific aspects to the Nazi purported holocaust make the general use of the word holocaust as as synonym for genocide or massacre no longer inappropriate, at least in many cases, which is not explained well enough in the article as it stands. Also, we have a only one brief quote from just one critic but several from defenders of the concept of "Holocaust trivialization" and we should expand the criticisms against limiting the use of thew word holocaust to "The Holocaust" only.
• The notable cases section only list two examples, both of which are Israeli-Palestinian conflict related. It would be good to search for and find other examples of claimed misuse the term holocaust with regard to other genocides (including alleged genocides). Surely, those two incidents are not the only cases for such misuse is alleged.

--2600:1700:56A0:4680:F537:E917:3525:50A0 (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

There is also no mention of the millions of non-Jewish deaths in the gas chambers, chief among them Soviet POWs. Lisa inCA (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Another way to balance the article would be to add a discussion of "Holocaust envy" as discussed in the New Yorker some twenty years ago. At that time it was still uniquely and unquestionably the ugliest crime of history, and other victimized groups, such as African-Americans, were envious. Lisa inCA (talk) 20:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Do not remove a NPOV tag on this arrticle without first discussing it on the talk page as reason has been given for the was given in detail.

When an NPOV tag is added to an article and a reason has been specifically stated on the talk for it being added, then you should discuss it on the talk page first before removing the tag, even if you feel the reasons are "spurious, ridiculous nonsense". If their is a consensus that an NPOV issue does not currently exist in the article then you can remove the tag otherwise an effort should be made to address the issues first. According to policy you should only remove the tag if one of the following is true: 1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved. 2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. 3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant. Since no discussion has taken place yet, the first point does not apply currently. The since the NPOV concerns where spelled out above, the 2nd point does not apply. Finely, since the NPOV concerns where just recently posted to the talk page and insufficient time has been given for a discussion to occur point 3 does not apply either. So I say to the user who removed the NPOV tag, please discuss it here on the talk page first as to while you feel the NPOV concerns expressed are not valid rather then simply reverting. Note that the person adding the NPOV tag is not required to fix the NPOV issue themselves, as it can be officiant to simply point them out for others to address, especially others more knowledgeable on the subject. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this talkpage for an NPOV tag. Get one before you restore it again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the policy is that there needs to be consensus to remove the tag. However, I don't think a stub article needs a tag like this, because the need for expansion is pretty much implicit for any stub article, so I support the removal.Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:35, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Generalize or combine with other articles? Value as standalone page not clear.

The first paragraph reads like an opinion essay and there is little evidence that "Holocaust trivialization" is much used as a phrase or concept unto itself. Maybe a more general page on Holocaust minimization or uniqueness of the Holocaust (also incorporating Is_the_Holocaust_Unique? and/or Historikerstreit) would be better. Sesquivalent (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that the idea that using "Holocaust" in contexts outside of the Nazi decimation of the Jews and others "trivializes" the word is not a mainstream one, but it does have its adherents, and has been the subject of at least one book. The point is not that the Holocaust itself is "minimalized" by such usages, but that other uses lessen the impact of the description. It's a very particular PoV, and does not fit well anywhere else, so I would be opposed to moving this article elswehere, or merging its material into another article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

WP cannot take a position on any aspect of the long and multifaceted debate over uniqueness, but it is missing an article about the debate, and currently deals only with particular pieces without acknowledging that this is a notable and recurring topic. If such an article were created, the pieces including "Holocaust trivialization" would fit well and mentioning the POV as one POV on one subtopic could be done in a few sentences. Sesquivalent (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Recent removal

Buidhe today removed the section "Soviet and Ukrainian Holocaust" saying that the sources are not mentioning the term of the subject "holocaust trivialization".[1] But I strongly disagree with this removal. Per WP:SYNTHNOT we need to focus on the meaning and context of the source than find out the exact wording. If we only focused on the exact term "holocaust trivialization" then more than half of the article would be erased. The content was added by David Kinge in 2020.[2] >>> Extorc.talk(); 10:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I do think that ideally we would be citing sources that are specifically use the word trivialize, trivialization or some close synonym, otherwise it could easily stray into original research. Some of the removed content is about fabrications such as Jasenovac being a death camp after WWII. I don't think the content I removed was clearly about trivialization, but if there are quotes from the source that show that this is the case, the content can be restored. (t · c) buidhe 11:19, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Meant to ping Davide King.

But Buidhe, the sources make it clear that the false balance between Holocaust and Holodomor which they find to be the "conquest's hunt for a new holocaust". >>> Extorc.talk(); 12:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiesel quotation in lead

The Wiesel quotation was recently removed from the lead by Keeper of Albion (talk · contribs), with the (partial) summary: "Removing... a highly emotive quotation that seemingly serves no purpose but to be so", and then restored (by me) with the (partial) summary, "Restore directly relevant, sourced information about Holocaust trivialization, by one of the best known observers of the Holocaust."

One possible issue I see here, is MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE since although Wiesel is mentioned in the body, that quote isn't. I'm inclined to ignore LEADNOTUNIQUE (which is a guideline, not policy) here, because of the unparalleled stature of Elie Wiesel in these matters, and because his quotation captures the very essence of Holocaust trivialization, to the point where it's hard for me to imagine a more effective introduction to the topic. But if not, it should be prominently in the body, and mentioned in the lead. Also, I wanted to offer Keeper an opportunity to argue their case, if they wish. Mathglot (talk) 08:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)