Talk:Holocaust victims

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on October 25, 2015. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 

Yad Vashem holdings (updated)[edit]

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

Typo in the main diagram[edit]

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

Holocaust Memorial Museum[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

The Anarchists?[edit]

Although it's generally admitted that many anarchists met their ends at various concentration camps, it's almost impossible to find anything more than that. Why is this? Is it some kind of implicit and unspoken agreement that the murder of the anarchists was justified or unimportant? I can't find any information anywhere. I can't imagine they'd be unrecorded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.24.53 (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Death Toll Numbers[edit]

This sentence in the lede:

Taking into account all of the Holocaust victims, the death toll rises considerably. Estimates generally place the number of these victims between three and five million people.

was the exact same sentence, except for a numbers change, that appears in the main Holocaust article. In THIS article, however, it is confusing, because there is no prior mention of "death toll" in the preceding lines, and no prior estimate of the exclusively Jewish death toll. Since this article deals with ALL the victims of the Nazis, I have reworded the sentence to better reflect the cited source, which deals not only with victims of the extermination camps, but also other deaths. I’ve also added more sources that support the numbers I provided. Grumpy otter 12:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This sentence seems to imply that 37 + 6 = 40:

...Nazis systematically killed an estimated 6 million Jews and were responsible for an estimated 37 million additional deaths during the war. Donald Niewyk suggests that the broadest definition, including Soviet civilian deaths, would produce a death toll of 40 million people killed.

The Romani Section[edit]

I tried to discover who had written this sentence in the Romani section, but I could not figure out an easy way of searching--anyway, my comment/question is in regard to this sentence:

Hitler's campaign of genocide against the Romani population of Europe involved a particularly bizarre application of Nazi "racial hygiene".

The "particularly bizarre" part is intriguing, but the section does not explain why the Romani genocide was unique. Does anyone know? I'd like the author or someone else to expand on this idea.

Grumpy otter 13:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


Reasons[edit]

I just drew a line between the racial and political reasons. I guess it's an important thing, especially since the definition of genocide. --HanzoHattori 22:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Catholic victims[edit]

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

Hitler was, for the most part, anti-Catholic. The Nazi paper Das Schwarze Korps ran many articles mocking Catholicism and the Pope. Hitler rennounced Catholicism and seemed to support Protestantism and "freethinking" Christianity. Whether intentional or not, many Catholics were indeed killed in the Holocaust. Catholic clergy members were often sent to internment camps. Catholic Poles were also common victims of the Holocaust. -- Callmarcus 26 April 2007

Regardless of whether it was genocide or not, it's disgraceful that there's not even a mention of the millions of Catholics killed.

Most of the Catholics who were killed were not killed specifically because they were Catholics but because they also belonged to other targeted groups such as Poles, Rroma, and so on.

The Nazis also killed large numbers of Lutherans, Calvinists, and of course Orthodox Christians but not specifically because they belonged to those religions.

Only a few religious groups were persecuted specifically for their religion with Jews being the most well known but also including Jehovah's Witnesses and others.


Both Naziism and Communism are almost quasi-religions and Nazi persecution of Communists could also be considered a form of quasi-religious persecution. Nov 8-07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.19 (talk) 22:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


That the Nazi's killed Catholics for different reasons than they killed Jews (and this point is debatable) doesn't make it right to omit and ignore the millions of Catholic victims. Who are you to decide which victims deserve mention and which ones don't? Is a Catholic life less valuable than a Jewish? I s a Catholic victim less a victim because he was not killed specifically because he was Catholic. A victim is a victim, a murder is a murder and a human life is a human life. Furthermore, there were thousands of Catholic priests and nuns who were killed and yet, once again, not even a mention. You cannot convince me that members of the Catholic clergy were not murdered because of their allegiance to Rome and to the Catholic Church. The editors of wikipedia are "unbiased" in the same way that the New York Times is unbiased. In this sense, unbiased means advancing a liberal, secular agenda.

On the other hand, there was a Catholic priest, Jozef Tiso, who ruled Slovakia on behalf of the Nazis. Also, the Catholic Church was very enthusiastic about the Ustasha regime in Croatia, which was a puppet state of the Nazis. Wikipedia does not have an agenda here; on the contrary, the normal historical narratives tend to ignore the extent of Catholic collaboration with Hitler's regime. Epa101 (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ownership of the Holocaust[edit]

It is extremely bad in Britain, most people when referring to the Holocaust think of it almost entirely as a Jewish event. Belittles the deaths of the countless homosexuals, intellectuals, POWs, Communists, Gypsies, Slavs, etc. Londo06 02:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Edited out[edit]

After the February 27, 1933 Reichstag fire, an attack blamed on the communists, Hitler declared a state of emergency and had president von Hindenburg sign the Reichstag Fire Decree, which suspended the Weimar Constitution for the whole duration of the Third Reich. In March 1933, three Bulgarians, Georgi Dimitrov, Vasil Tanev and Blagoi Popov, members of the Comintern, were arrested and wrongly accused of the fire. As a result, the Communist Party of Germany (KPD) was the first party to be forbidden, on March 1, 1933, on the grounds that they were preparing a putsch. This allowed the NSDAP to vote the March 23, 1933 Enabling Act, which enabled Chancellor Adolf Hitler and his cabinet to enact laws without the participation of the Reichstag. These two laws signals the implementation of the Gleichschaltung, which is how the Nazis established their totalitarian rule. On May 2, 1933, following Labor Day, the trade union association ADGB (Allgemeiner Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund) was shattered, when SA and NSBO (Nationalsozialistische Betriebszellenorganisation) units occupied union facilities and ADGB leaders were imprisoned. Other important associations were forced to merge with the German Labor Front (Deutsche Arbeitsfront (DAF)) in the following months.

  • Jewish history in Germany, Nazism:

The central motif of the Holocaust was the Nazis' desire to annihilate the Jews. Anti-Semitism was common in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s (though its roots go back much further). Adolf Hitler's fanatical brand of racial anti-Semitism was laid out in his 1925 book Mein Kampf, which, though largely ignored when it was first printed, became a bestseller in Germany once Hitler gained political power.

On April 1, 1933, shortly after Hitler's accession to power, the Nazis, led mainly by Julius Streicher, and the Sturmabteilung, organized a one-day boycott of all Jewish-owned businesses in Germany. A series of increasingly harsh laws were soon passed in quick succession. Under the “Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service”, passed by the Reichstag on April 7 1933, all Jewish civil servants at the Reich, Länder, and municipal levels of government were fired immediately. The "Law for the Restoration of a Professional Civil Service" marked the first time since Germany's unification in 1871 that an anti-Semitic law had been passed in Germany. This was followed by the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 that prevented marriage between any Jew and non-Jew, and stripped all Jews of German citizenships (their official title became "subject of the state") and of their basic civil rights, e.g., to vote. Similar restrictions and harassment of 100,000 Germans of part-Jewish descent, known as "mischling" was part of the Nazi regime's fanatical anti-Semitic binge, though most "mischling" are not considered for extermination. [citation needed]

In 1936, Jews were banned from all professional jobs, effectively preventing them exerting any influence in education, politics, higher education and industry. On 15 November 1938, Jewish children were banned from going to normal schools. By April 1939, nearly all Jewish companies had either collapsed under financial pressure and declining profits, or had been forced to sell out to the Nazi-German government as part of the "Aryanization" policy inaugurated in 1937.

--HanzoHattori 13:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Scan2002.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Scan2002.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:19558.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:19558.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

I'm afraid that I am failing this article's GA review. There are numerous problems with it which I don't think can be addressed easily ad would suggest substantial work before this goes before GA again. For such a complex, interesting and controversial subject, 11 references is no where near enough. Entire paragraphs are unreferenced, often containing sentances which need references. e.g. "Scholars disagree as to what proportion of these non-Jewish Polish civilian deaths during the Nazi conquest and occupation of Poland were part of the Holocaust, though there is no doubt of the eventual genocidal intentions of the Nazis towards the Poles." which also contains weasel words. Several references are improperly formatted with raw URLs and even worse, in text links. The prose is disjoined and in places confusing and rarely adheres to the manual of style, there are also many one line sentances. Images are good, but some have improperly formatted or missing copyright notices.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackyd101 (talkcontribs)

You mentioned "Several references are improperly formatted with raw URLs and even worse, in text links." Could you provide an example of a proper reference? Grumpy otter (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Scan2002.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Scan2002.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Einsatzgruppen Killing.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Two missing categories[edit]

I've been on a tour of Dachau concentration camp recently. I've noticed two missing categories.

  • Emigrants. These were given the blue triangle in the camps. Germans who had lived abroad for several years before returning to Germany were considered to have too many foreign ideas, so they were put into concentration camps.
  • Street entertainers, beggars and prostitutes were put into camps. They were given the black triangle, which was also given to the Romanies.

I think it would be good if a section on the different triangles could be added to this article. I've not made any changes, as I know that going on a concentration-camp tour doesn't count as evidence. I thought I'd write on here and see if anyone has any academic sources close to hand to back this up. Epa101 (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism[edit]

AN editor seems to have screwed up the page with editing mistakes. I have tried to fix them, but would appreciate a Smart Person checking behind me. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Serb Victims?[edit]

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

You'll need to back up your statement with a Reliable Source for it to be included in the article. I've never read that Serbs were ever targeted for mass-murder in the philosophical manner that Jews, Gypsies, etc., were by the National Socialist's. Many Yugoslavs died as casualties of battle during WWII, of course.HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
How about the information contained here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_persecution_of_Serbs ("The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum has estimated that Ustaša authorities murdered between 320,000 and 340,000 ethnic Serb residents of Croatia and Bosnia between 1941 and 1945 (the period of Ustaše rule), of whom between 45,000 and 52,000 were murdered at the Jasenovac concentration camp alone. According to the Federal Institute for Statistics in Belgrade, the 'actual' figure of the casulties suffered within Yugoslavia's border of war-related causes during the second world war was ca. 597,323 deaths. Of these, 346,740 were Serbs and 83,257 were Croats.") 63.241.40.124 (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

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

"millions"[edit]

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

Orphaned references in Holocaust victims[edit]

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

Reference named "Paul Berben p. 142":

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

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

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

Slovene mentioned but not Croats despite both collaborating?[edit]

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

GA Review[edit]

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

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

Good Article Criteria Table[edit]

Will be filled in as I progress with the review.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (No original research):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.: I recommend suggesting the article for temporary semi-protection.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): All but 1 images are in the public domain. The odd one out is the work of the poster.
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Notes[edit]

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

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)