Talk:Holocaust victims/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Reasons

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)

Ownership of the Holocaust

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

• For the use in Reichstag fire, Enabling Act of 1933 and/or Gleichschaltung:

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.

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

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

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)

The Romani Section

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)

Death Toll Numbers

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.

Fair use rationale for Image:Scan2002.jpg

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

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:

• Image:Lidice massacred men.jpg

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)

GA Review

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 (talk • contribs)

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)

Two missing categories

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

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)

Catholic victims

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)

The Anarchists?

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)

"millions"

"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 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Holocaust victims

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":

• From Reichskonkordat: Paul Berben; Dachau: The Official History 1933–1945; Norfolk Press; London; 1975; ISBN 0-85211-009-X; p. 142
• From Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany: Paul Berben; Dachau: The Official History 1933–1945; Norfolk Press; London; 1975; ISBN 0-85211-009-X; p. 142

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

• From Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany: Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; W.W. Norton & Co; London; pp. 381–82
• From Mit brennender Sorge: Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; WW Norton & Company; London; p. 381–382
• From Reichskonkordat: Ian Kershaw; Hitler: A Biography; 2008 Edn; W.W. Norton & Co; London; pp. 381–82
• From Pope Pius XI: Ian Kershaw; Hitler a Biography; 2008 Edn; WW Norton & Company; London; p.381-382

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

• From Pope Pius XI: William L. Shirer; The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; Secker & Warburg; London; 1960; p234-5
• From Catholic resistance to Nazi Germany: William L. Shirer; The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; Secker & Warburg; London; 1960; p 234–5
• From Reichskonkordat: William L. Shirer; The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; Secker & Warburg; London; 1960; pp. 234–35
• From Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany: William L. Shirer; The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich; Secker & Warburg; London; 1960; pp. 234–35

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)

Typo in the main diagram

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)

Slovene mentioned but not Croats despite both collaborating?

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

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

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

—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 (talk • contribs) 13:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Serb Victims?

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Holocaust Memorial Museum

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)

External links modified

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:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bahai.de/deutsche-gemeinde/geschichte-100-jahre/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Yad Vashem holdings (updated)

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)

The "Holocaust victims" has to be named "Genocide victims of WWII". The article did not match the definition of Holocaust. See article "The Holocaust".

No way this belongs in this article

I removed the following excerpt from the "Others" section. The part about wealthy Germans being sent to concentration camps was unsourced, and the part about German women's rights under the Nazi regime, while accurate and sourced, has nothing to do with the article. Sure they can be considered victims of the Nazis, but not the Holocaust. They weren't being rounded up and killed like all the other groups in the article. Even though the rest of the Others section isn't sourced either, it at least seems germane to the article. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

"During the late 1930s, a Nazi program branding many wealthy Germans "enemies of the state" confiscated property and sent thousands of people to concentration camps. According to Nazi policies formulated in part by Joseph Goebbels, the rich manipulated the German economy and held seditious, liberal views contrary to Nazism.[citation needed]

Historians have paid special attention to the efforts by Nazi Germany to reverse the gains women made before 1933, especially in the liberal Weimar Republic.[109] Theoretically, the Nazis believed that women must be subservient to men, avoid careers, devote themselves to childbearing and child-rearing, and be helpmates of the traditional dominant fathers in the traditional family;[110] this was commonly known as Kinder, Küche, Kirche, a concept pre-dating the Third Reich. While prior to 1933, women played important roles in the Nazi organization,[111] in 1934, Hitler proclaimed, "[Woman's] world is her husband, her family, her children, her house."[112] Laws that had protected women's rights were repealed and new laws were introduced to restrict women to the home and in their roles as wives and mothers. Women were barred from government and university positions. Women's rights groups (such as the Bund Deutscher Frauenvereine) were disbanded, and replaced with new social groups that would reinforce Nazi values.[113]"

When is a "victim" a "Holocaust victim"?

An issue has arisen at Zsa Zsa Gabor: when is a German (also Hungarian) Jew in the 1930s regarded as a "Holocaust victim"? Is there any sort of recognised start date? Many people saw the (sometimes literally) "writing on the wall" and left Europe before WWII. Some left early, and left with relative ease having been able to sell property for a fair price and take money with them. Others left during a period of relative personal safety, but economic disadvantage, and left businesses etc. behind them. Others then only escaped barely at the last minute. Others, of course, went through the wartime period and the camps.

For a case like Zsa Zsa Gabor, is it appropriate to use the term "Holocaust victim"? Does this vary geographically for the same time period? It's unclear in Germany, but presumably French cases would be dated from the Occupation (even though some French Jews left before the outbreak of war). Would Austria or Czechoslovakia similarly date from the Anschluss and the Sudetenland annexation? (and note that these slightly pre-date Kristallnacht).

Thoughts? Robust external sources? Has there ever been an internationally recognised definition of terms? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Yenish people

Does anyone know whether the Yenish people were persecuted in Nazi Germany, as the Romanis were? Epa101 (talk) 20:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Greetings to Dougweller

Hi Doug.

Sorry that I found an old feedback from you back in 2013 (Yes, a long overdue) (Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holocaust_victims&oldid=536514085)

What I addressed to you at that time was trying to tell you that "Formosa" was for a region (geographically, it means the Island of Taiwan, named by Portuguese when they first identified it in voyage, which is named as Taiwan by Qin <Chinese> Empire), not referring to a country nor sovereignty. So when you addressed CKS (the old ROC China), Formsa must not be included at that moment (prior 1945, when Japan & Germany were allies).

Hoping this late response would get to you. (I'm having problem in figuring out how the wiki interface works, sorry guys).

Ark89044300 (talk) 07:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC) ark89044300 04/02/2017

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Holocaust victims. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303081500/http://www.holocaust-education.dk/baggrund/eutanasi.asp to http://www.holocaust-education.dk/baggrund/eutanasi.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011014249/http://www.ushmm.org/education/resource/poles/poles.pdf to http://www.ushmm.org/education/resource/poles/poles.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121210071945/http://mill-valley.freemasonry.biz/persecution.htm to http://mill-valley.freemasonry.biz/persecution.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Europe v World loss

from Holocaust_victims#Jews:

The European Jewish population was reduced from 9,740,000 to 3,642,000;

the world's Jewish population was reduced by one-third, from roughly 16.6 million in 1939 to about 11 million in 1946

The difference of the first figures is 6,098,000, but 16.6 million minus 11 million is 5.6 million. Something seems off here. Would the difference of 498,000 reflect Jews who moved out of Europe rather than dying? ScratchMarshall (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

alleged 1979 article

Kampeas, Ron (31 January 2017). "'Remember the 11 million'? Why an inflated victims tally irks Holocaust historians". jta.org. It is, however, a number without any scholarly basis. Indeed, say those close to the late Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal, its progenitor, it is a number that was intended to increase sympathy for Jewish suffering but which now is more often used to obscure it.
..
The "5 million" has driven Holocaust historians to distraction ever since Wiesenthal started to peddle it in the 1970s. Wiesenthal told the Washington Post in 1979, "I have sought with Jewish leaders not to talk about 6 million Jewish dead, but rather about 11 million civilians dead, including 6 million Jews."

I am trying to verify this claim from Kampeas. If this Washington Post quote exists, is anyone able to find out the month/day in 1979 it was published, its title and author? Perhaps a link to where we could view it online if possible? I would like to cite it as a compliment to Kampeas' article. This is rather important since Jimmy Carter also referenced this in 1979 on April 24th:

"Jimmy Carter: Days of Remembrance of Victims of the Holocaust Remarks at a Commemorative Ceremony". ucsb.edu. Our words pale before the frightening spectacle of human evil which was unleashed on the world and before the awesomeness of the suffering involved; the sheer weight of its numbers: 11 million innocent victims exterminated, 6 million of them Jews.

So I'm trying to figure out who said it first. ScratchMarshall (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

inflation section removed

@Grayfell: I am trying to understand your reasoning in special:diff/811992621 where you wrote "American-centric recentism, trivia, and WP:OR. This misrepresents sources, context, and the rest of this article."

I do not believe you have supported your objections. Here is where I left off:

24 April 1979 Jimmy Carter referred to 11 million victims including 6 million Jews. Historian Deborah Lipstadt objected to the "eleven" figure in 2011. After these figures were tweeted by the Israeli Defense Forces' spokesperson in January 2017, and Donald Trump staffer Hope Hicks linked CNN to a 2015 Huffington Post article citing the 5 million statistic it prompted a rebuttal 2 days later from journalist Ron Kampeas who (while agreeing that 6 million Jews died) criticized the statistics of 11 million total and resulting implied difference of 5 million non-Jews as an invention of Simon Wiesenthal. Kampeas cited a recent interview with Yehuda Bauer who said he told Wiesenthal it was a lie. According to Kampeas, Wiesenthal told the Washington Post in 1979: "I have sought with Jewish leaders not to talk about 6 million Jewish dead, but rather about 11 million civilians dead, including 6 million Jews."

References

I'll address your complaints point by point:

American-centric: is this a reference to Lipstadt and Kampeas being Americans? Wiesenthal was Austrian, however. Aside from using Bauer (an Israeli) as a source, here is another Israeli. Surely that is a significant nationality considering the issue, if you must shrug Americans aside?

• Moore, Deborah (2009). p. 78 https://books.google.ca/books?id=beAGmQ7tDQgC&pg=PA78. In Yehuda Bauer's view, the Wiesenthal position is seriously flawed historically as well as conceptually: "It is apparently no less a man than Simon Wiesenthal ... who has invented the '11 million' formula that is a key slogan in the denial of the uniqueness of the Jewish experience. Wiesenthal is going around campuses and Jewish congregations saying that the Holocaust was the murder of 11 million people -- the six million Jews and five million non-Jews who were killed in the Nazi camps. In purely historical terms this is sheer nonsense. The total number of people who died in concentration camps during the war period -excepting Jews and Gypsies- was about half a million, perhaps a little more. On the other hand, the total number of non-Jewish civilian casualties during the war caused by Nazi brutality cannot be less than 20-25 million. . . . Probably some 2.5 million Soviet POWs died in special camps that were not part of the concentration camp system (though some thousands were shipped to concentration camps and murdered there)." Yehuda Bauer, "Whose Holocaust?" Midstream, November 1980, 43. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
• Segev, Tom (2012). The Life and Legends - Simon Wiesenthal. p. 322. It is difficult to ascertain how Wiesenthal reached the conclusion that in addition to the six million Jews, the Nazis also murdered five million non-Jews. The number of non-Jews the Nazis killed in the death camps was much lower, whereas the number of non-Jewish civilians killed in World War II was much higher.

An earlier work on this by another American (I'm not understanding why we should censor American historians):

• Novick, Peter (2000). The Holocaust in American Life. p. 225. And, in the end, how much did this whole six-versus-eleven business matter? To some, of course, a great deal. Particularly for those Jews for whom the Holocaust was a holy event - the deaths of the Nazis' Jewish victims sacred, those of their gentile victims profane - the issue was not negotiable. The same was true of those for whom the "big truth" about the Holocaust was its Zionist lesson - that Jewis hlife in the Diaspora was untenable. For those, including myself, who value precision of expression, "six" describes something specific and determinate; "eleven," even apart from being invented and arbitrary, is unacceptabley mushy. (Wiesenthal's invented number may not have been completely arbitrary, since it combines maximum inclusiveness with the perservation of a Jewish majority.) But if we're concerned, as we are in this chapter, with the images and perceptions of the American public at large, these distinctions may not be all that consequential. Even in the talk of "eleven," Jews are always taken to be at the center, others at the periphery.

Recentism: incorrect, while there was certainly 2017 followup, this has been an ongoing issue for decades, as we can see from Moore's citation of Bauer's 1980 objection to Wiesenthal's 1970 activities.

Trivia: calling this issue trivial seems OR on your part, it has been significant enough for several notable historians to bring up. Statistics which have influenced statements from a US President, the Israeli Defense Forces and referenced by the present US administration is not trivial.

OR: None of this was original research, I listed sources supporting this and have provided even more regarding the controversy which many notable people have written on. I get the sense you're just piling on accusations hoping something will stick.

Misrepresents Sources how? Please be specific about what sources you think I was misrepresenting. What changes would you suggest to how the sources were conveyed?

Misrepresents Context again: please offer some specifics here, and suggestions for improvement. I want to improve on this section and I don't think you should interfere unless you plan to help.

Misrepresents REST OF THE ARTICLE: how? I'm talking about one specific issue regarding historical statements about non-Jewish tallies which have recurred and been highlighted upon a great deal.

Whatever problems you had with the section, I think you should have simply improved the section instead of erasing it entirely. I am open to us working on it here collectively to make improvements (such as incorporating these new sources I've bulleted) before putting it back. ScratchMarshall (talk) 10:06, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

The biggest improvement I could've made was removing it, so I did. If you are serious about working together, shouting isn't appropriate. This section directly cited passing mentions from primary documents, such as Trump's tweets and Carter's speech, and also cited two sources (the first JTA one and the Huffington Post UK article) which did not mention anything at all about the 11 million number being inaccurate. This is a daisy-chain of obscure primary sources to eventually reach a point made by a single source. You have only one source which challenges this number, but this section barely even attempted to summarize what it had to say. This is the only source which says anything at all about inflation. "Inflation" is a painfully, obviously inappropriate section header. In addition to its lazy convenience for holocaust denialists, it's refuting a claim that's never actually made by the article. Nowhere does the article claim that the total number of people who died in the Holocaust is 11 million, so this entire section is downplaying a claim that it doesn't ever make, in support of a fringe perspective. You added a handful of haphazard sources, but did absolutely nothing to summarize the context provided by those sources. It's American-centric because most of the mish-mash of sources are focused on Trump's or Carter's tweeting, but the significance of a couple of President's passing comments to the entire topic is not even remotely demonstrated by these sources as due weight. Again, the biggest improvement I could make was to remove it. This is such a garbled mess of synth shoved under a non-neutral header that it damages the article. Grayfell (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I regret the impression my formatting caused, I did not intend for it to come across as shouting, just thought bumping up the font side would serve better than bolding as point headers. I wish there was an underline button. I had intended to all-caps "sources" and "context" but forgot because I was repeating "misrepresents" and wanted it to stand out.

What is the problem with citing the primary documents of the tweet/speech? This is done to support the references which cite them so people can easily check what it's about. Obviously those on their own would not be notable, it is the additional sources reporting on them which establishes that.

The HuffPo article and the 1st JTA article are not meant to discredit the 11 million, I was simply presenting the sources conveying basic facts which the 2nd JTA article touched upon, just as the additional book sources supplied here talked about the Jimmy Carter speech (since they were published before Trump was elected).

The daisy chain to a single source (a notable one though, the JTA) is only in regards to the recent statement from the IDF and the Hicks-to-CNN linking. The issue of the 11 million (and Jimmy Carter) has been addressed in the sources I just added above:

• Bauer in 1980 via Moore in 2009
• Novick in 2000
• Segev in 2012

If you object to the header, what would be preferable alternatives? Novick uses the phrase "invented number" and Bauer used "invented" as well but I'm not sure how that would work. How about "numerical misrepresentation" ? That should open with a basic link to Holocaust denial which covers the cases of people deflating the numbers of Jews who died, but since this is a case of inflating the number of non-Jews who died it wouldn't fit under denial.

Nowhere does the article claim that the total number of people who died in the Holocaust is 11 million

Can you clarify which article you mean since I have mentioned many here? The IDF tweet "11 million men, women & children, including 6 million Jews, perished in the Holocaust" is one of the things the Kampeas article was responding to. If you're talking about HuffPo, it does say it, I just didn't include all quotes when citing:

The 5 Million Non-Jewish People Killed By The Nazis

Six million Jewish people were murdered during the genocide in Europe in the years leading up to 1945

Historians estimate the total number of deaths to be 11 million

It wasn't in the title but it was in the body. ScratchMarshall (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about this Wikipedia article, which lists 17 million civilian deaths as only one of several suggestions. You built an entire section about a single source with the end result of underlining a single discrepancy in total disregard to due weight. This excessive level of detail, and warped presentation of that detail, are completely inappropriate and overlap with antisemitic conspiracy theories. I am not inclined to help you make this edit. As I said, it damages the article. The one useful source here would justify, at most, a couple of sentences. Your section was entirely compatible with Holocaust denial tactics, since it emphasized a minor discrepancy and deception as though it were of great significance. This is common among neo-Nazis, since they think it sows seeds of doubt about the academic consensus, even though this is a grotesque distortion of reality. Now that I've pointed this out to you, do not restore this content without either much, much better sources, or a much better attempt at neutrally summarizing what the sources are actually saying. Grayfell (talk) 10:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Homosexuals

As-is, the table at the top of the article claims that between 5 000 and 15 000 homosexuals were killed. However, my estimates suggest that there is a pretty wide (an-order-of=magnitude-or-two wide) discrepancy with these numbers.

I wish to state for readers that this is neither a Holocaust-denying nor a homophobic rant. This is me pointing out a statistical oversight.

I... guess that kind of read like "I'm not racist but...", but seriously, it's neither of those things.

According to my calculations, the total death toll was somewhere in the range from around 9.8 million to 11 million, though I've seen numbers as high as 17 million. Assuming a roughly 1:1 gender ratio among victims and calling the percentage of men which are gay $g$, this suggests that we expect roughly between $4900000g$ and $5600000g$ gay men to have died in the Holocaust; if we assume the lower total and that the highest number of homosexuals in the table- 15 000- is correct, it suggests only 0.30% of men are gay, which is an extremely low estimate. A high estimate of $g=10\%$ suggests between 490 000 and 560 000, my personal go-to estimate of $g=5\%$ In any case, the the number is off by a factor of more than 16.

Now, what happened in the article resulting in this is pretty clear (at least after some math): we know 5 000-15 000 people were killed specifically for being gay. However, there were, without question, a thousands upon thousands upon thousands of victims who were incidentally gay who can never be counted. We know the table isn't listing one group each- a quick total says the table must already include overlaps (the high estimate sums to nearly 20 million, the low end to 16.5 million. The latter is millions above even the highest estimate (17 million) and the latter is very nearly at it).

I recommend adding a footnote to the table indicating that the 5 000-15 000 figure is those known, and that many unknown others certainly fell victim to the Nazis (I'd argue these statistics don't count as OR due to WP:CALC, but the definition of "routine calculations" is relative). I would've just added it immediately but... uh... I'm not sure. I guess I did the math and I felt like writing a whole talk page essay about statistics. Maybe to inform people about mentally double-checking if numbers make sense? And... I wound up doing it on the most depressing subject possible.

In short: the table only counts people killed specifically for being gay, there must have been many more murdered for other reasons, and I need a better hobby. Hppavilion1 (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Please read WP:OR carefully, especially WP:SYNTHESIS. Your calculations go far beyond what is acceptable per WP:CALC, the purpose of which is to allow simple additions, subtraction, multiplication and division. What you have done is taken a series of assumptions and used them to come to a conclusion -- that is simply not allowed. We cite reliable secondary sources, we do not make complex calculations of this sort to come to our own, independent, conclusions. If the number of gays who were Holocaust victims is other than this article reports, then a reliable source must say that, otherwise we cannot report it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Victim table sort order

Possibly as a result of some categories being combined, the sort order of the table of victims doesn't seem to make any sense at present? It appears it was historically ordered by lower-bound of victim count. Should the table be resorted appropriately, the combined categories split back out or should it be resorted by alternate criteria? Or should the current, somewhat illogical order remain? 14.202.193.210 (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Absent any comment on the matter, based on historical sort orders, I've resorted rows in the header victim table by lower-bound of estimated victim count. 14.202.193.210 (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

the 3 million ethnic poles killed is thouroughly disputed by multiple academics.

it's an out of date source that inlcudes people who may have emigrated. more recent studies suggest a far lower kill count at 1.8 to 1.9 million. Fustos (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

You cannot simply assert that and be done with it, and go ahead and restore your edit (which you did, and which I reverted). Please site WP:reliable sources, and wait for there to be a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of your changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

my source is the US hollocaust museum. and if you read the otehr articles the 6 million dead is heavily disputed. so i'm not the one doing the asserting Fustos (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

You in fact cited nothing, since the "name=" ref link you added was undefined. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

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

The previous GA review was quite cursory. In its current state, the article violates MOS:IMAGELOC and includes a large number of and tags as well as unsourced statements. Unless this is fixed, the article will have to be delisted. Catrìona (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@Buidhe::- Invoking attention. ∯WBG^converse 17:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Table of victims

Why the table have quantity per Soviet as a country and then for Poland as a nation (excluding Polish Jews). It's inconcistent. Polish (country) population should be included for wider view. --78.11.210.57 (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Forgotten Place

The Baltimore Steam Packet Company's Eolus paddlewheel steamboat in an 1869 photo by William King Covell, Exodus 1947 was a ship that carried 4,500 Jewish immigrants from France to British Mandatory Palestine on July 11, 1947. Most were Holocaust survivors who had no legal immigration certificates for Palestine. The ship was boarded by the British in international waters, killing three of those on board and injuring some ten. The ship was taken to Haifa where ships were waiting to return the Jews to refugee camps in European. Asep Ramadhani (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

You had me through "boarding", but "killing"? Nope, I am not going there. In any case, none of this is particularly pertinent to this article, and -- in any event -- isn't going into any Wikipedia article without a citations from a very reliable source. Have you got one> Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2019

Shouldnt the slavs be listed first since they were the most exterminated group in the Holocaust? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.196.249 (talk) 08:46, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The freemason death count should be revised to unknown. The author who proposed that number now admits it was largely a guess.

https://www.reddit.com/r/freemasonry/comments/8ujfl5/evidence_of_masonic_killings_during_the_holocaust/ 12.208.57.82 (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done - at least tentatively, because (1) There are two sources for the number cited; (2) Reddit is not a reliable source for adding or changing the number, including removing it entirely. If you have further evidence to offer, in the form of a citation from a reliable source, please do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The second source (1) is just a restatement of the first source and (2) is no longer on the website [deleted]. Furthermore, the Reddit source is not just a source, it is a quote from chodapp (Christopher Hodapp) who was the original author of 'Freemasons for Dummies'. I can't think of a better source to dispute this allegation. The author himself. That post can be found about 50-60% down on the Reddit thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.208.57.82 (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, here is a very good reference on the subject:

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/freemasonry-under-the-nazi-regime — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.208.57.82 (talk) 16:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

It is not possible to know that the person who claims to be Christipher Hodapp actually is. Until he recants his figures in a published reliable source under his own name, there is a published source to support the number. That the USHMM doesn't give a figure doesn't mean that there isn't one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

What about the Serbs?

Why there is no section about the Serbian people? When it comes to civillians, Serbs were the main Holocaust victims right after Jews, Poles and Gypsies! 81.190.44.102 (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Got a good source to base a section on? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Why are the archives of this talk section removed/not available?

There seems to be only a single talk page with 3 recent points of discussion. Why is there no archiving? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.140.114 (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

www.projectinposterum.org

@The Banner: please elaborate why you consider www.projectinposterum.org to be reliable. MozeTak (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

• @MozeTak: Please explain why you call this "abominable sourcing removed". No word why this source is bad. No need for removal as multiple sources are allowed. The Banner talk 22:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It is a blog by an advocacy group. Please see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Article sourcing expectations this fails by a mile. MozeTak (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Proof? The Banner talk 22:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
      • The burden of proof should be on you, the editor who is advocating for the use of this website run by anonymous people. MozeTak (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
        • So you discredit a source without any real evidence? based just on your own opinion? The Banner talk 11:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

addition of new groups in the "scope of usage"

more groups we're persecuted by the nazis, such as: the Salvation Army Adherents, the Adventists, the Muslims, the Orthodox Christians, French, Arabs(until 1941), Dutch, Belgian, Italian(from 1943), Hungarian and Greek Citizens and POWS, some Allied POWS and Diplomats, the astrologers, the healers, the fortune tellers, and the witchcraft. 177.83.137.145 (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Proof? The Banner talk 22:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

-proof for Salvation army adherents, adventists, astrologers, healers, fortune tellers and withcraft:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany

-proof for the arabs and Muslims:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world

the arabs and muslims we're persecuted by the germans for a small period of time (like the turks), before the arabs started collaborating with them, after the arabs started helping the germans, they abandoned their bad views on the Arabs and Muslims.

-proof for italian POWS and citizens:

• POWS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_military_internees (some italian soldiers we're sent to concentration camps for being jews, looking like jews or being too resistent)

• Citizens:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_war_crimes#Italy (a lot of italian citizens we're killed for opposing the nazi regime and ideology)

-proof for french POWS and citizens:

POWS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_prisoners_of_war_in_World_War_II (some french soldiers that we're jews, looked like jews or we're too resistent we're sent to concentration camps)

• citizens:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_war_crimes#France (a lot of french citizens died during the occupation for opposing the nazi regime and ideology)

-proof for dutch POWS and citizens:

POWS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dutch_prisoners_of_war_in_World_War_II (some dutch POWS we're sent to concentration camps for being jews, looking like jews or being too resistent)

• Citizens:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_war_crimes#Netherlands (a lot of dutch citizens died during the occupation for opposing the nazi regime and ideology)

-proof for belgian POWS and citizens:

• POWS:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_prisoners_of_war_in_World_War_II (some belgian pows we're sent to concentration camps for being jews, looking like jews or being too resistant)

• citizens:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_war_crimes#Belgium_2 (some Belgian citizens we're deported for the same reasons that dutch, french and italian soldiers we're sent to death camps)

That is rather at odds with Indian Legion, Free Arabian Legion, 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian) (mostly muslim), 23rd Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Kama (2nd Croatian) (mostly muslims), Azeri SS Volunteer Formations, all part of the SS or the Wehrmacht. The Banner talk 23:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

like i said, they hated muslims and arabs at the start, but then they started liking them only to get their people as Volunteers, same with the turks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.83.137.145 (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

What exact changes to you wish to make, and which reliable sources support those changes? Please note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 October 2020

i strongly object to the dearth of information on this page about the holocaust as it has been conventionally understood and counted. as possibly the single greatest affront to humanism in human history, it very much needs to be enumerated more careful i would argue. firstly, let me just say that i do not in any way object to the inclusion of information from the holocaust museum; but that said it alone is far from sufficient in my estimation. by convention the holocaust has been counted separately from the sum total of all "illegal killings" (murders) that the nazis were responsible for. by convention the number has long been settled and unquestioned by the mainstream at approximately 11 million souls. i do not find the total exclusion of this number to be advisable or even intellectually honest.

the nazi regime was illegitimate (read illegal) almost from it's inception. it's conduct throughout the 30s violated international and german law ceaselessly. it's aggressive military actions - likewise - were by most any sane person's reading not legal i would argue. this would include the 2nd world war in it's totality i would argue, especially since they were completely defeated and their surviving leaders put in trial... the whole regime was de facto and ex post facto an illegal machine. the point i am trying to make is this; if one were to count the totality of nazi murders why would combat deaths by all sides not be counted as well?? counting illegal killings that the nazis were responsible for seems like a bit of a fools errand to me... unless you want to include combat deaths as well. whatever your view on this point the title of this page is not "total nazi murders". any number here substantially more than the widely recognized 11m and the total of virtually all non-naturally occurring deaths in the european theatre at least while war was ongoing makes me a little queasy personally.

extra judicial deaths of soviet citizens, and combatants and perceived potential combatants (including in spain and other countries) should by en large be counted towards war deaths or total nazi killings i would argue, not necessarily the holocaust per se. the inclusion of all "extra-judicial" killings here as murders is highly problematic as well i would argue. would it have been any better in the eyes of the international community or posterity if the nazis (a violent, single-party, fascism regime) had appointed faithful party members as "judges" to ordain every killing?? i think not; and that this distinction nears meaninglessness.

is this page about the holocaust or not? it would seem to me that the officially (near universally) recognized numbers for the holocaust need to at least be included here. this is not just a conversation for a few academics in ivory towers, meticulously revising and rearranging numbers. there are very real real world implications for this information now and going forward! i hope we are all aware that while few, holocaust deniers do exist. and that while few, there are also others that might wish to dispute the official numbers. this is much of the reason i see this as being so important. accurate and consistent numbers and definitions of what the holocaust was are essential i would argue.

i hope whoever is reading this is still awake and that they will consider revisions highlighting more the 11m number with diminished emphasis on the 17m, or just changing the name of the page entirely. thank you very much for considering this position. KuzeOri (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

addition of new groups into "others", "other religious persecution" and "scope of usage"

as i remember, the Nazis repressed the feminist movement in Germany, also, per Religion in Nazi Germany, the salvation army and the Adventist church we're both banned, and the adherents of both churches/movements that didn't escape (most escaped, like, 98% ran away from germany), we're imprisoned and, mostly sent to concentration camps (especially the feminists).

i think the feminists should be added into the "others" section and on scope of usage, salvation army and the Adventist church should be included in "other religious persecution" and scope of usage (on scope of usage, salvation army is renamed to "Salvation Army adherents" and the Adventist church is renamed to "Adventists". Dojyaan! ZaZooZee was here! (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

oh, also, add about the astrologers, healers, fortune tellers and witchcraft persecuted (like the others, it was banned and the people that refused to abandon it, if caught, we're arrested and sent to concentration camps) by the nazi regime on Scope of Usage and its banning/persecution i other religious persecution (per Religion in Nazi Germany). Dojyaan! ZaZooZee was here! (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

You're going to need citations from reliable sources to support all of these suggested changes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

there it is the sources for the religious persecution of salvation army adherents, adventists, healers, fortune tellers, witchcraft and astrologers: Religion - Nazi economic, social and racial policy - WJEC - GCSE History Revision - WJEC - BBC Bitesize , for the feminists, its something everyone pretty knows about, if you want a source for the feminists, ill give you one, but i think it isnt really needed. Dojyaan! ZaZooZee was here! (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

you should also include on the "others" and "scope of usage" sections about the nazis banning the "Freethinker" and Atheist organizations and the arrest of their members (repression, which basically makes it able to go into "scope of usage"), the sources for this are: Religiosität in der säkularisierten Welt: Theoretische und empirische ... - Google Livros and Atheismus und religiöse Indifferenz - Google Livros . Dojyaan! ZaZooZee was here! (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

also, you should add on "other religious persecution" about the nazis banning some esoteric stuff (mainly the Study group for Psychic Research) in germany and the arrest of freiderich bernhanrd bharmy (something like that), the only esoteric member to be sent to a concentration camp in germany, the sources are: (its on Religion in Nazi Germany - Wikipedia, sadly i couldnt find any sources as the entire part is without sources, i may search for some sources to add later). Dojyaan! ZaZooZee was here! (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 April 2021

well, wasn't the feminist movement in Germany persecuted under nazi rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism_in_Germany#Nazi_era)?, so i think it should be added into the "scope of usage" and "others" sections.

also, according to these sources (https://books.google.com.br/books?id=YXOr4xQFSJsC&pg=PA124&redir_esc=y and https://books.google.com.br/books?id=nfQ0pqA53Z8C&pg=PA157&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false), German atheist and freethinker groups we're banned and their members arrested, so, i think it should also be included.

other persecution:

esoteric groups (only supression):https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany#Esoteric_groups (this one only maybe, there isn't sources on that section so, take this one with a grain of salt)

astrologists, healers, witchcraft, fortune tellers and "study group for psychic research":https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zw6s7p3/revision/6

salvation army and seventh-day Adventist church: (same as astrologists, healers, witchcraft....) 187.39.133.201 (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

in addition, due to Nazism being the official and only permitted ideology, liberals and social-democrats were also persecuted under the nazi regime.

2nd addition: strikers we're also imprisoned considered "political enemies", there also we're some allied POW's that were sent to death camps (obviously, only a minority, like the KLB club and Jewish soldiers aswell as soldiers that "looked like Jewish or we're otherwise undesirable") 187.39.133.201 (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we should add in every single possible class of person who was persecuted by the Nazis until it becomes quite clear that the Holocaust wasn't really about killing the Jews at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

are you being serious or sarcastic? cant tell though.

if you are serious, well, congrats holocaust revisionist. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

also, no, holocaust was about killing jews but not ONLY jews, it was about killing people considered "undesirable" by the nazis, jews we're only one of the groups persecuted by the nazis, there were many others, also, these are only small additions and wont "make it clear that the holocaust wasnt about killing jews at all", its just mentioning that atheists, freethinkers, adventists, salvation army adherents, astrologists, healers, witchcraft, fortune tellers, "study group for psychic research", liberals, social-democrats, strikers, feminists and some allied POWS (klb club, jewish and "soldiers that looked like jewish or we're undesirable"), remember, only MENTIONING, not entire sections, as they were only small persecution. only 1 mention or 2 is enough. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Your request is virtually identical to the one just above this section, made by an editor who is now blocked and globally locked. I'm assuming that is you, so I'm making an admin aware of this apparent block evasion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

SPI filed, but the IP is almost certainly a block-evadiing sock, so archiving this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2020

You forgot to tag this template {{pp-30-500}} for this article due to WP:APL. 122.2.10.69 (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done, and good catch, thank you! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 11:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Slavs

The numbers for Slavs should be combined in my opinion, as other "groups" such as Roma, Jewish etc are not broken down by country in the way that Slavs are.

Although it's difficult to estimate due to perhaps lacking research in the past, there are reliable sources like the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum's massive project called Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945 which have reliable and complete numbers. However they seem reluctant to publish totals clearly, though they did make headlines a few years back with shocking numbers, that by using the same criteria (killing due to hatred against a group, and the same methods of killing) that is used to get to the 6 million number for Jewish people, the total number of Holocaust victims is a bigger number than is widely reported. The other main takeaway is that more non-Jewish Slavs were killed in the Holocaust than Jewish people. While the individual numbers in this Wikipedia article reflect that, it makes sense to total them and to also put that in text such as "Slavs (and non-Jewish Slavs) in total had more deaths than any other group, with xxx killed." And then of course, something about how Jews were targeted more intensely, and that Jewish people lost a greater portion of their population. Anyone willing to look at the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945 as a source, and get the numbers reported would be appreciated and the right way to give all of the victims justice without prejudice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.255.101.83 (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Totals

From the following source, the main source already used in this article, we can very easily calculate totals.

• about 17.4-17.5 million total Holocaust deaths (perhaps the 17 million number should be revised to this)
• about 11 million total non-Jewish Slavs killed in the Holocaust (the terrible and massive Gereralplan Ost plan was to kill and deport Slavs and Jews and take over their land, this plan was well underway during the War but was interrupted by the Soviet Union winning the War, during the summer of 1941 the killing of 100% of Jews and Roma was prioritised as the terrible Final Solution, which was already part of Gereralplan Ost.)
• about 8 million total non-Jewish civilian Slavs (as 3 million Soviet POWs were murdered, note that killing of a prisoner of was is genocide and fit into the above mentioned plan)
• about 6 million Jewish people

Documenting Numbers of Victims — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.255.101.83 (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2021

This is a request to edit the first sentence.

"Holocaust victims were people who were targeted by the government of Nazi Germany for various discriminatory practices due to their ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, or sexual orientation."

Should be changed to:

"Holocaust victims were people who were targeted by the government of Nazi Germany due to various discriminatory practices relating to their ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, or sexual orientation."

I believe the way it is currently written may cause an inference that the victims were practicing discriminatory practices due to their ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, or sexual orientation. Thank you for your time. 51.6.55.41 (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The sentence is meaningless, and to the extent that it has any meaning is false. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you were right, I'm not sure why I didn't see that. The edits by you and Obenritter have corrected it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2020

[Note: This page's extended-confirmed protection may not be justified. It was apparently affected by another page, and in my opinion a semi-protection would be more appropriate for a start.]

I propose adding the following sentence after the last line at the Holocaust victims#Jews paragraph: "The Yad Vashem Museum has created, in an ongoing collaboration with many partners, a database with the names and biographical details of close to 4.8 of the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis and their accomplices during the Holocaust, as well as those whose fate has yet to be determined. The names of more than one million victims remain unknown and are still being collected. Bezrat (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

References

•  Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps it should be considered to add this video source as well, which discusses this matter. Bezrat (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Numbers for Political Prisoners

The only section without precise numbers is Political Prisoners and Leftists. Though there are sources. These should be added to the article.

politically murdered until 1945: 77,000 in total until 1945, cf: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_resistance_to_Nazism

only 1933 250 Socialists and Communists in the first months, cf: https://dasjahr1933.de/braunbuch-reichstagsband/

until 1939 thousands, the closest source to that: https://dasjahr1933.de/kz-system-1933/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rikuti (talk • contribs) 13:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to note regarding the first source cited, WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. You can lift a source from within the article, but you cannot cite the Wikipedia article as a source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:47, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 February 2021

Removing in Section "Additional Non-europeans" Asian residents and North African. They weren't mentioned in the reference. And change the section title to black africans instead of non-europeans. Marko8726 (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

oppose Anton de Kom was black and a victim. But as far as I know Suriname is not in Africa but in South America. The Banner talk 14:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The reference didn't mention it. I think you should add it. But still there aren't any sources which say that Asians/Northern africans were persecuted. Marko8726 (talk) 07:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Poland death toll during German occupation

There is a confusion here, if this article concerns the Holocaust, the casualties of the German occupation shouldn't be included. The Holocaust is about genocide and not about war related casualties. It must be strict if not you can consider 30 millions death related to WWII. The Holocaust happened during WWII, but WWII isn't the Holocaust. The figure of 3,3 millions polish civilians that died during the German occupation should not be included has Holocaust victims.--Vanlister (talk) 11:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

False definition

The Holocaust isn't Nazi persecutions but the systematic extermination of specifically the Jewish and Romani people, with other minorities. As part of this policies other people died, but other people weren't the target of the Holocaust.

The main source is about : "DOCUMENTING NUMBERS OF VICTIMS OF THE HOLOCAUST AND NAZI PERSECUTION"

However this article talk for all victims of Nazi Germany as victims of the Holocaust, which is utterly wrong.

Rename the article :

Victims of the Holocaust and Nazi persecution. And the war related casualties should be differentiated from those victims, or at least there should be a mention of the problem to count people who died of Nazi persecutions. --Vanlister (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

(1) Don't demand, ask.

(2) Please provide multiple citations from reliable sources which support your contention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't find a reference to prove that the Wikipedia page has been wrongly written. The references are useful to prove that something is true, but it's irrelevant to try to prove that something isn't. I can't find on the article a reliable reference that contradict my statement. I personnaly think this page completely missed the point.--Vanlister (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

If you cannot find reliable sources which support your contention, then your change will not be made. Your personal feelings are irrelevant. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Negationism or lack of precision

The article claim 5-6 millions Jews have been killed. This estimate is a fallacy. The overwhelming researchers and historians evaluate it to around 6 millions with hundreds of thousands of balance, no-one serious claim 5 millions people were killed. Today, the consensus is over 5.7, the range proposed from 5.3 or 5.4 is outdated.

Claiming it is between 5 and 6 isn't true, as the number is closer to 6 and certainly not 5, and actually it completely ignore the estimate range that go over 6!! So I am sorry but it's poor work or revisionism... --Vanlister (talk) 16:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

As we keep telling you ... prove it. Personal opinions don't matter here -- only sources do. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:07, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

If someone came here and said "Your article is wrong, only 3-4 million Jews were killed", we'd answer "Please provide citations from reliable sources to support your contention." You come here and say "Over 5.7 million Jews were killed" and we respond "Please provide citations from reliable sources to support your contention." That's the bottom line: No changes are going to be made to the article without citations from reliable sources to support them, and a consensus from editors on the talk page. It's useless to keep complaining about what you perceive as faults in the article (or in any Wikipedia article) if you don't come bearing citations to support your complaint. We're funny that way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 July 2021

In the ISBN template {{isbn|0-631-18507=0}}, please replace equal sign with dash. Thank you 84.69.182.103 (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done — IVORK _Talk 01:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2021

Please change "LGBT people (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender);" to "Homosexual people (gay, lesbian, bisexual);" The use of LGBT is unnecessarily vague and the source provided only references the persecution of gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Thank you. Sheepdog11 (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ––FormalDude talk 11:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2021

Please add a "Total" row at the bottom of the "Murdered" table at the top right of the page. Most other population tables on Wikipedia seem to do this, so why not make it easy for our readers? Based on the sources, the low estimate is 16,109,750, and the upper estimate is 19,618,500. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

You can't add estimates this way, it's not numerically or statistically sound. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Seventeen million is simply not a precise number. It is far better to have a confidence interval with more significant figures. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

From the sources in the article, it looks like "seventeen million"/"six million Jews and eleven million non-Jews" is a consensus number. Do we have a high-quality source we can use for a total row? Sceptre (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Quoting from the article: "Donald Niewyk suggests that the broadest definition, including Soviet civilian deaths, would produce a death toll of 17 million." I assume that comes from the The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, Columbia University Press, 2000. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

 Note: Closing the request while under discussion, per template instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Seeking Consensus: Use of LGBT is unnecessarily vague when it was specifically homosexuals who were persecuted.

I requested the following change but was denied because I hadn't established a consensus (my fault, I apologize):

'Please change "LGBT people (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender);" to "Homosexual people (gay, lesbian, bisexual);" The use of LGBT is unnecessarily vague and the source provided only references the persecution of gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Thank you.'

Let me know what you think of this proposed change. Sheepdog11 (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sheepdog11: Thank you for starting a discussion.

Since this proposal appears to be due to the fact that the article does not currently provide a source that references the persecution of transgender people in Nazi Germany, I've looked into that specifically. Here's what I've found.

• Transgender is a term that did not become popular until the 1970s. Per Wikipedia, it is used to describe "people who have a gender identity or gender expression that differs from the sex that they were assigned at birth." In other words, it describes gender-nonconforming persons.
• I've identified in reliable sources that gender-nonconforming people were most certainly a part of persecution in Nazi Germany.
  • Gender Nonconforming Lives in Interwar Germany. Retrospect Journal.
  • 9 Lesser-Known Details of Queer Persecution During Nazi Germany. Them (magazine)
  • Why It Took Decades for LGBTQ Stories to Be Included in Holocaust History. Time (magazine).

So here's my thoughts. Just because transgender was not a popular word during the existence of Nazi Germany does not mean that transgender people did not exist, and as reliable sources suggest they were persecuted, we should include the current wording in the article as-is. ––Formal ^talk 21:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: Thank you for adding a source.

As you stated, the proposal was indeed due to the lack of source for the 'Transgender' part of the LGBT acronym. You have rectified this issue.

As per your final line, I agree. LGBT is used here as a descriptor of a category of people who existed at the time, even if the descriptor 'LGBT' was not in use yet.

Thanks again. Sheepdog11 (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know how protocol for editing works, but [67] is a dead link. I found it with the wayback machine: https://web.archive.org/web/20140517100422/http://homocaust.org/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.155.240.54 (talk) 17:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Mental Illness

The eugenics policy went far beyond the mentally ill, into all forms of mental divergence. Those born with a large number of conditions were also murdered, for example almost all of Hans Aspergers clients. The "family" of those not neurotypical (and that was pretty much the wider group not conforming to the Arian ideal) have now declared themselves Neurodivergent, although this does not include the mentally ill. To a great extent, the rationale was pure discrimination. The attack on women and children took the form of immediate selection for the gas chambers on arrival at the camps. I'd strongly recommend you alter the phrasing, therefore, as it reflects an outdated model from the 1950s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.80.209 (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Esperantists

@Horse Eye's Back: The quotation from the source doesn't mention concentration camps. If you have access to the source, I'd like to ask you to extend the quotation. I also think that the source should directly say that esperantists were victims of the Holocaust (and not just they were victims of the Nazis). My intention is to avoid Trivialization of the Holocaust. Rsk6400 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

7 million Soviet civilians died in the Holocaust

The source cited in the infopanel for the figure of "5.7 million Soviet civilians" says 7 million and is inclusive of Jews: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution.

Wikipedia having this number editorialized to exclude the 1.3 million Soviet Jews from the figure is misleading and inappropriate (as the source does not say 5.7 million nor does it exclude 1.3 million Soviet Jews).

The figure in the infopanel for "Soviet civilians" should say "7 million (incl. 1.3 million Jews)" per the cited source. The article is locked, so someone with access should make this change.

69.127.80.46 (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

POV

Hello, I deleted badly written and not sourced content as it is false or dubious. Please provide quality sourcing for more.--Vanlister (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Use of the word "gypsy" as clarification for the Romani

Is the inclusion of the parenthetical "(gypsies)" when referring to the Romani people under the section Scope of usage necessary when the article linked to the Romani people already includes the fact that "gypsy" is commonly used as an exonym for the group? Rather than directly refer to them as such, someone unsure of who the Romani people are could visit the linked article and see them referred to as the more common gypsies in the context that it is a derogatory term. My suggestion would be to simply remove the parenthesis after the word "Romanis" in that section. Ceressyncs (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Table omits political victims

The table includes some political opponents but misses many. Are there any good estimates? Statista.com uses 70000 criminals and opponents from us Holocaust museum 90.248.239.27 (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2022

Change: "

Nazi propaganda about the differences between German Aryans and blacks.

" to "

Nazi propaganda about the differences between German Aryans and Afro-Germans/Black people.

"

Change: "The Nazis promoted xenophobia and racism against all "non-Aryan" races. African (Black) residents of Germany and Black prisoners of war, such as French colonial troops and African Americans, were also victims of Nazi racial policy.}} Hitler forgot. He used to say: “Compare the civilization of the Greeks with what Japan or China were at the same period: it is like comparing the music of Beethoven with the screeching of a cat.”

The latter passage was reverted for this: What is "Hitler forgot" supposed to mean? Anyway, based on a primary source, not relevant.

Three questions. Did the consensus resolve that anything based on primary sources is irrelevant? Is not the first passage based on primary source? And, most interesting, is there another person puzzled "What is Hitler forgot supposed to mean" in the context?--Maxaxa (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The onus for getting consensus for the inclusion of said passage is on you, see WP:ONUS. Rsk6400 (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 July 2023

In the Scope of usage section change the word "Romanis" to "the Roma" or "the Romani", this is the gramatically correct use of the word. Using a plural s in Romani is incorrect. Unge.Fellini (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cherrell410^{(t · c)} 15:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 August 2023

Add Christianity to the portals list as they are mentioned in the article as well. Huntertheediter (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. What portal lists? Lightoil (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

They're were some when i wrote the original comment but now they are gone for some reason. Sorry. Huntertheediter (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Crossover in statistics

We all need to understand that when we consider the numbers of deaths, there is a crossover. Example: Poland estimates that 6 million Poles were murdered; however, about half were Jewish. We rarely see how many Germans were murdered and what percentage were Jewish. So, take these entries with a grain of and use a little critical thinking because the numbers presented in Wikipedia and other sources don't necessarily add up well. 2600:1702:3CA0:FB60:E60:6A8D:834B:910A (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Why soviet civilians has excl. Note but poles doesn't?

The list has note next to Soviet civilians but there is no note next to Poles? 3 million of Jews were Polish. 2A01:4B00:8752:3100:714B:5C48:93E6:ED5D (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Not the academic consensus

An editor marked - undiscussed - two sources with a tag for better sources with the comment "Tagged these sources, neither reflects the academic consensus". These sources are already a long time there and never have been scrutinised as "not the academic consensus". Especially the marking of the Yad Vashem source puzzles me. The other source (in Serbian) is beyond my language capabilities, so I can not judge it. Maybe the marking was correct, maybe not. But if the markings were correct, do we have better sources available to replace them? The Banner talk 07:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Not the best but better: [1] [2] [3] Levivich (talk) 07:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that was me. Yad Vashem is not authoritative on the numbers of Serbs killed, its main focus is on Jews, naturally, and much more and more recent work on numbers of killed has been done by scholars focused on occupied Yugoslavia. For example, Tomasevich, Pavlowitch and others have assessed the work of Yugoslav statisticians and demographers, and local historical institutes have conducted studies. NIN, whilst generally scholarly, is also not of sufficient quality. I will provide some numbers and citations from appropriate sources shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Certainly the third USHMM link Levivich has provided reflects the academic consensus, which is in the low to mid 300K. Numbers of Croats and Serbs killed in WWII became almost a competition to create mythology between competing groups. We could just use that for now? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The first two relates to the Jews killed by the NDH not Serbs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't really want to have this argument, but according to USHMM (and, in my view, scholarly consensus), Serbs killed by Ustasa were not victims of the Holocaust. [4]: "The Nazis and their allies and collaborators killed six million Jewish people. This systematic, state-sponsored genocide is now known as the Holocaust. The Nazis and their allies and collaborators also committed other mass atrocities. They persecuted and killed millions of non-Jewish people during World War II." -- Jews killed in the Holocaust, non-Jews killed in other atrocities.

Later on that page: "The Nazis and their allies and collaborators murdered six million Jewish people in a genocide now known as the Holocaust. They also murdered millions of non-Jewish people between 1933 and 1945." (Note: the Holocaust didn't happen between 1933 and 1945.) In the table below this quote, 310,000 "Serb civilians murdered by Ustaša authorities of the Independent State of Croatia". They're not victims of the Holocaust.

So we can't cite USHMM to say 300,000 Serbs were killed in the Holocaust, it's a misrepresentation of that source. And I don't think you'll find any source that says 300,000 Serbs were killed in the Holocaust. The Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia happened at the same time, but was not the same thing, as The Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia.

The problem with this page is it treats everyone killed by Nazis or their Allies as "victims of the Holocaust," which is not what the sources say. It's why the table and most of the content in this article is wildly wrong. Levivich (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Entirely agree. Unfortunately, there are multiple pages where it is portrayed as being part of the Holocaust. The Holocaust article, which isn’t bad, explains the differing views on including non-Jews. But I think en WP needs to lay down some scope guidelines. In Yugoslavia, Jews were killed in the Holocaust, Romani were killed in the Romani Holocaust, Serbs were killed in the genocide by the Ustashas, and Muslims and Croats were killed in large numbers by Serbs, and the Germans and Italians killed everyone. They aren’t one and the same, the motives and policies were different. The Holocaust in the Independent State of Croatia currently includes Serbs, which IMHO, it shouldn’t. It is a bit of a mess. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Would either of you object to me removing the Serbs from this article on that basis? Or do you foresee likely challenges with that? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

No objection here. Levivich (talk) 23:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I am very cautious but do not object. Would it be an idea to create a second article about the non-Holocaust mass murders? Or an overview to direct people to the correct pages in these cases? The Banner talk 09:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Understandable, people are very sensitive about such things. In terms of the Serbs (which is my focus here) the Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia article is well-developed at least. Might a hatnote to a dab page listing the other non-Holocaust mass murders be appropriate? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

IIRC someone (Buidhe?) created a "victims of Nazis" page once (not List of victims of Nazism, but a page about "other victims"), and it was merged or something, but now I can't seem to find it again or what happened to it, maybe I imagined it. I think hatnotes could be helpful to add to this page. However, this kind of is the article where Wikipedia can explain the different scholarly views about who were and who were not victims of the Holocaust, so I'm not sure what a dab page would do that this page isn't supposed to do, but I'm certainly not opposed to a hatnote to a dab. Levivich (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Mass killings by Nazi Germany (t · c) buidhe 17:08, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, that doesn’t help with many of the mass killings in occupied Yugoslavia though, most of which were perpetrated by the Ustasha puppet state or Chetniks (and others), or mass killings by the Italians. While the Germans and Italians provided the overarching security for the actions of many of these killings, they didn’t perpetrate many of them directly (they did kill a lot of captured Partisans of course, but these are of a slightly different nature). I’ll have a bit more of a think about a possible way to describe all this and come back to you. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)<

FWIW, we have Allied war crimes during World War II but no Axis war crimes during World War II, but we do have List of war crimes committed during World War II. Levivich (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I created a redirect, because List of war crimes committed during World War II#Axis powers is very detailed. Maybe someone will split it follwing Wikipedia:Summary style. - Altenmann >talk 21:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

As Peacemaker points out, the Chetniks were heavily involved in war crimes in Yugoslavia but are hard to classify as Axis or Allied. (t · c) buidhe 04:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2023

In the section "Scope of Usage", change "...the mentally or physically disabled, mentally ill" to "people with mental or physical disabilities"

/2023-12-11 94.255.242.74 (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done Ertal72 (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 15 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There is no agreement that the article should be retitled as proposed, therefore we remain with the status quo ante. Per the "non-arbitrary break" at the bottom, it seems there are some bigger questions about scope to be worked out, and perhaps that should take place following this disucussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Holocaust victims → Victims of Nazi Germany – As per the discussion at "Definition and scope," the definition of the Holocaust in the very first line of this article contradicts that of the article for The Holocaust.

Whether or not the millions of non-Jewish people, such as gay men, the disabled, Romani etc. should be considered Holocaust victims is a point of contention even if there is broad historical consensus that they are people murdered by Nazi Germany. We do not need to identify the other groups as "Holocaust victims" as that is an academic debate in itself, nor excise their inclusion in the article if we just rename the article and make it clear that the Holocaust is mostly specifically used for the destruction of Jews. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. — mw (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose This proposal is a massive jumping to a conclusion, not carried by the discussion mentioned. The Banner talk 23:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support - it's a more NPOV title for this topic. Whether these groups targeted by the Nazis were part of the Holocaust or not is secondary to the point that these groups were targeted by the Nazis. Scholars don't agree about which groups besides Jews (if any) should be considered victims of the Holocaust, but scholars do agree, very broadly, about which groups were victims of the Nazis. To maintain NPOV, Wikipedia should call the article about these groups by the name that most scholars agree on (victims of Nazi Germany) and not by a name that most scholars disagree about (Holocaust victims). As it stands, Wikipedia is taking a significant minority position (that everyone killed by Nazis were victims of the Holocaust, including Soviet POWs) and stating it in Wikipedia's voice as if it were the uncontested mainstream position. It contradicts the main The Holocaust article, which gives the mainstream position. This article has been a POVFORK of the main one for long enough; let's fix it finally with a rename. Levivich (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose , many victims of Nazi Germany were not "Holocaust victims". The Holocaust is defined as the genocide of European Jews during World War. The topic of Holocaust Victims is notable enough to have its own article distinct from The Holocaust . Victims of Nazi Germany can be created as another parent article of this page (while The Holocaust is also a parent of this page). Marokwitz (talk) 07:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Marokwitz Should the non-Jewish victims of Nazi Germany be removed from this article and mentioned as non-Holocaust victims in the lede? HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The main article, "The Holocaust," begins with, "The Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews during World War II." Although "Holocaust" sometimes refers to the persecution of other groups targeted by the Nazis, it would be inconsistent to choose different definitions (which are indeed used in reliable sources) in different articles. Marokwitz (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

But you're opposing this move? I don't understand. Levivich (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Because I suggested this article scope should be fixed, and a parent article Victims of Nazi Germany created... Unless what you are suggesting is to create a new article about Holocaust Victims instead of a redirect? In that case the result would be the same Marokwitz (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Right except not the same result, because of article history. The content of this article is about a different topic than its title. So let's fix the title of this article so it stops misinforming readers. If someone wants to then create a Holocaust victims article they can do so. But more to the point, can all of us who agree that this article is a pov fork of the main article please agree on a solution at long last :-) Otherwise the problem will persist. Levivich (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. The topic of Jewish victims of Nazi Germany is significant enough for a separate article. A scope change as Marokwitz suggested is a good solution for the currently discussed issue. HilbertSpaceExplorer (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose of course. No valid reason to rename. Holocaust victims ≠ victims of Nazi Germany and the overlap is only partial. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Would like to see some more policy-based comments on this. — mw (talk) (contribs) 00:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I am not happy with the proposed title change because many of the victims currently listed in this article were not victims of Nazi Germany. Most victims of mass murder in Yugoslavia during the war were killed by the Ustasha puppet state or other factions like the Chetniks. Yes, some were killed by the occupying Germans (mostly Jews, captured Partisans and perceived sympathisers, although the Ustashas also murdered all of those groups as well), Italians (Partisans and sympathisers), Hungarians (Serbs and Jews mostly) and Bulgarians (Serbs, although they handed thousands of Jews over to the Germans). The 300,000 or so Serbs killed by the Ustashas are not considered victims of the Holocaust by the majority of historians of the Holocaust or of the genocide of the Serbs in the Ustasha state, so they should not be in an article about the Holocaust. So, we should not be calling all of these people "victims of the Holocaust" in wikivoice in the article title when that is the case, as Levivich wrote above, because that is misinforming readers. The content of this article should probably be Victims of the Axis powers and collaborators or something like that, if the content is going to remain roughly the same. Otherwise, this will remain a clear POV fork of the Holocaust article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  This is a good point, but I'm not entirely sure if the distinction should be made. While many of the people here are counted as being killed by Nazi collaborators and their allies, keep in mind that most historians consider these individuals as still being categorized as those being murdered by the Nazis due to the status of such entities as puppet states of Nazi Germany. The same way the murder of Jews is considered to be the crime of both a soldier who commits it and Hitler himself, the thousands killed by pro-Axis puppet states propped up by Nazi Germany are considered to be victims of both Germany proper and the puppet regime.

  And tagging @HilbertSpaceExplorer @Oleg Yunakov @Marokwitz- I would like to clarify that I am not opposed to the existence of a new article called "Holocaust victims." This article would focus on the Jewish victims of the Holocaust and clarify who is and isn't considered a Holocaust victim. That has plenty of justification for an article for itself- what I mean is that this current article, which details all of the groups murdered by the Nazis, should be renamed. Therefore, this article would not have to completely rewritten to fit its title but rather would correctly be identified for its actual contents. In other words:

  This current article: Renamed to Victims of Nazi Germany, an overview of all the groups targeted for extermination by Nazis.

  A new article will be created with the title "Holocaust victims" that follows the destruction of Jews.

  HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 03:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  I understand your perspective, and it is logically sound. What if we begin by drafting the proposed second article and then assess whether a renaming would be appropriate? It's just that currently renaming looks a bit misleading (before your explanation). Plus perhaps a name "Victims of Nazi Germany and its collaborators" might be more precise as overall in various countries victims were not just killed "in" and "by" Nazi Germany if you see what I mean. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 03:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

  I would just make the point that murderous actions of the Ustashas, despite the state only existing because the Germans and Italians set and propped them up, were matters they decided. Would those people have been murdered if the Axis hadn't created the state? Probably not, but calling the 300,000 dead Serbs "victims of Nazi Germany" obscures the very real agency the Ustashas had to take action independently of the Germans and Italians. The Germans actually claimed to be appalled at what they were doing (for a range of reasons, mostly because it was generating an insurgency). They weren't "murdered by the Nazis", the academic consensus doesn't support that, and we shouldn't categorise them that way. My view is that "this" article should be renamed as Victims of the Axis powers and collaborators. If other articles are needed (I'm not sure about that), they should be created, but this scope of this article should either be limited to those that the majority of Holocaust scholars say were Holocaust victims (and the others removed, with a short explanation remaining about why they aren't here and which scholars might include the other groups), or be retitled as I've suggested. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:51, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't everyone agree that there should basically be two articles: (1) one about Jewish victims of the Holocaust, and (2) one about non-Jewish victims of war crimes during WWII? If so, then the question is do we (a) rewrite this article into #1 and create another article about #2, or (b) rewrite (and rename) this article into #2, and create a new article about #1? Am I misreading the consensus here? I would support either option A or B, I just think B is easier. Levivich (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree. This is what I was trying to say above. Marokwitz (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree. The appropriate course of action is b), because the article history of this article has been about that subject. If it is considered necessary to create a content fork of The Holocaust to specifically cover the victims in greater detail, as suggested, it should be created as a new article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree. I believe that everyone here agrees that a new article should be created for Holocaust victims in particular. I believe the best title for this article now should be "Victims of Nazi Germany and collaborators" after hearing the objections to the title only including Nazi Germany. (We should not replace Nazi Germany with 'Axis Powers' as this would include Imperial Japan). All groups participating in the war crimes described in this article are considered to be directly under the command of Germany or groups collaborating with Germany. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 02:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Would (2) be an article exclusively about non-Jewish victims, or would it be an article about both Jewish and non-Jewish victims (this article's current scope)? The proposed "Victims of Nazi Germany" article mentioned above would seem to include both Jews and non-Jews, but this proposal only mentions non-Jews. Malerisch (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Malerisch It would include both Jews and non-Jews. Everyone covered in the new article for Holocaust victims will technically be already covered in this renamed article, but there's enough sources out there and content that two articles is warranted.

Also, I'm likely going to go ahead and move this article to Victims of Nazi Germany and collaborators and then start the seperate Holocaust victims article in the next few days if there's no substantial objections. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Sitting on the fence I am still sitting on the fence at this point, as I am uneasy with the term "war crimes". A death camp like Natzweiler-Struthof concentration camp was not part of the Holocaust but is horrifying in its own right. And you had Oradour-sur-Glane massacre (retaliation, war crime) and Malmedy massacre (battlefield war crime). To throw them into one article seems odd at least. The Banner talk 17:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I see the concern about "war crime," a term that I used loosely in my comment above. I wasn't sure what term to use ("atrocities"? Just "crimes"?). But the dividing line being "victims of the Holocaust" and "victims not of the Holocaust" (commonly referred to in the literature as the "other groups," meaning other than Jews). Levivich (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Maybe something incorporating "Crimes against humanity" conform Crimes against humanity#Nuremberg trials? The Banner talk 01:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm concerned that both "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" are legal terms, whereas RSes describe some "Victims of Nazi Germany and its collaborators" whose cases may not have been legally adjudicated as war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc., so I think I prefer the broader scope of "victims." Levivich (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I still oppose the renaming of this article as proposed. But I would support a split as proposed. With a referral article named "Victims of Axis states and its collaborators" pointing to Holocaust victims, something with a better title than "Non-Holocaust victims of the Axis and its collaborators" plus an article about the atrocities in Asia. The Banner talk 14:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not thought through. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support - the proposed title better reflects the scope of the article, which includes those groups who were not victims of the Holocaust, such as political prisoners, Spanish Republicans, enemy nationals, etc. "Victims of Nazi Germany and its collaborators" is a good choice for the scope. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose. The article is clearly larger in scope than the Holocaust proper. But "Victims of Nazi Germany" is just a very bad alternative. Everyone on the other side of the war could be called a "victim of Nazi Germany". The scope could be made a little more precise with something like "Victims of Nazi genocide", which is wide enough to include a variety of groups targeted for extermination. Walrasiad (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

  The problem with that is that they're not all victims of genocide. LGBT, Jehova's Witnesses, Slavs, etc. were persecuted, victims of atrocities, but not genocide. Whereas other group, like Romani, were victims of genocide (but not nec the Holocaust). Levivich (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, let's leave "genocide" out of it. "Victims of Nazi Germany and its collaborators" is broad and inclusive, and doesn't claim "Holocaust" nomenclature for various groups that no-one includes as part of the Holocaust. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:48, 1 January 2024 (UTC);

The article explicitly says Poles, Homosexuals, Jehovah's witnesses were targeted for extermination (as a group, even if individuals are left alive). If the term "genocide" seems too strong, then it'll have to be something in that ball park. That is, something that captures the idea of intentional and systematic policy of eliminating these groups. Because the proposed "Victims of Nazi Germany" definitely doesn't cut it. It would include everybody victimized by war, e.g. London Blitz survivors, occupied Danes, etc. Walrasiad (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

(Putting aside that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and this article in particular doesn't accurately sum up RSes) I'd be fine with "Victims of persecution by Nazi Germany [or Axis] and its collaborators..." although that title would not be concise. Levivich (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

"Victims of Nazi persecution" would be more concise. Although there is still the 'group' element missing (this is not a list of individuals, but groups), it would be better than the proposal. Walrasiad (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

"Groups persecuted by Nazi Germany and its collaborators"? Levivich (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hm. Not really concise. I would prefer to omit the whole "persecuted by Nazi Germany and its collaborators" as too long, and simply replace it with "Nazi persecution". Maybe "Groups targeted by Nazi persecution"? Or maybe just leave it simple "Victims of Nazi persecution", and let the article explain it in terms of groups. Not perfect, but better than current. Walrasiad (talk) 10:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd support any of those, and I support not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good :-) Levivich (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support a move to Victims of the Axis powers and collaborators (for clarity for the closer). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

As HadesTTW mentioned above, the Axis powers includes the Empire of Japan. Do you think this article's scope should be expanded to include the victims of events like the Nanjing Massacre, the Manila massacre, Sook Ching, and the Bataan Death March? Nobody else in this discussion has suggested anything along those lines. Malerisch (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

FWIW my 2c is that it would be OK to have multiple levels of parent/child articles, e.g. one article for all "Axis powers", separate sub-articles for Nazis+collaborators and Japan+collaborators, separate sub-articles just for Nazis and Japan and for (each of?) their collaborators, etc. Just on WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:SIZE principles, there is enough RS material about this to probably have an article about every single country in the war, and so also for various levels of parent articles "up" from there. However, the content of this article as it's written right now, doesn't cover Japan, hence my preference for moving this to "Nazi+collaborators" but with no prejudice against someone creating a broader "Axis+collaborators" article as suggested by Peacemaker. Levivich (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support This article should be moved to any reasonable title that doesn't contradict Wikipedia's definition of the Holocaust. Malerisch (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Despite what is currently written on Wikipedia, there is no academic consensus on which victims are covered by the term Holocaust. However for the term Shoah, there is definite consensus that this term is exclusively used to describe the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Of the total number of Holocaust victims, Jews make up 35% of those killed by Nazi Germany and/or their puppet allies. By separating victim groups into Holocaust and non-Holocaust victims, you create content forks that confuses readers as you have doubling up of articles. ElderZamzam (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

  I don't believe there exists even one modern scholar who says Jews were 35% of the victims of the Holocaust, which suggests there were 18 million victims of the Holocaust, which is another number that I do not believe even a single modern scholar says. I have seen multiple scholars explicitly reject this suggestion, though, some of which I've listed in another thread on this page. I haven't read everything though of course so I'd be interested to know if there are any modern scholars that give the 35%/18 million numbers. Levivich (talk) 01:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  I obtained 35% solely from the Estimates of victims table on this Wikipedia page, 6/17 million being 35%. ElderZamzam (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  WP is not a reliable source. The table is wrong, and is one of the primary reason I put a {fact} tag on this article. The misinformation that you just believed to be true needs to be fixed (via a page move/rescope/rewrite) and is why I support this move request, so that others aren't similarly misinformed. Levivich (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

  The death toll table is well sourced by reliable sources so I am not sure why you have come to the conclusion that it is factually wrong. We may be misunderstanding each other (death toll vs which deaths are considered part of the holocaust). If you believe the death toll itself is debatable then that is beyond this talk page discussion and needs a dedicated discussion itself. ElderZamzam (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, it is sourced adequately, but the problem is that the weight of academic sources do not consider most of them victims of the Holocaust. That is the fundamental problem with this article that we are trying to address. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, it's a textbook example of WP:SYNTH: combining multiple RSes to support a novel conclusion that none of the RSes support. The sources say some of those groups were victims of the Holocaust (though they don't all agree on which ones, except Jews), but none say that all those groups were victims of the Holocaust. Levivich (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.