Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Intro needs to be changed. It's misleading

I don't agree with the first paragraph

"The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt")[2] also known as Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "the catastrophe"; Yiddish: חורבן, Churben or Hurban, from the Hebrew for "destruction"), was a genocide in which approximately six million Jews were killed by the Nazi regime, under the command of Adolf Hitler, and its collaborators. Killings took place throughout Nazi Germany and German-occupied territories.[3]"

It implies that the holocaust was just a Jewish tragedy. They were obviously the biggest affected group, but 5 million Christians also died in it. It's not acceptable to imply it was solely a Jewish tragedy in the lead line, then only explain later that millions of others also died in it.

The intro is fine, if it's an article about the Jewish holocaust. But this seems to be about the holocaust as a whole. You only quote half the number of people who actually died in it, in the intro. It's 11 million total.

Cjmooney9 (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I think making the Jewish group stand out more does make sense, given that they are by far the largest ethnic group to be targeted, though perhaps the 1st and 2nd paragraphs of the lede could be simply combined into 1 paragraph. This would mention the other 5 million in the same leading paragraph while still focusing more on the Jews. Thoughts? Cannolis (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree because the Holocaust is universally recognized as a Jewish event. The Nazis obviously killed millions and when you include the many millions more killed by the communists and others during WWII the total is something in excess of 60 million total casualties. The Nazis, however, specifically targeted Jews for extermination just because they were Jews. Over six million total Jewish people were killed and many if not most were not exterminated in gas chambers of death camps but killed by other means. If we include the others killed by other means the Holocaust loses its unique and important aspect in that the Jewish people were targeted as a group for systematic extermination. Many Roma died in those camps as well (mostly due to horrific conditions and now due to extermination via gas like Zyklon-B) but they recognize their own suffering as the Porjamas. Should we include the millions of ethnic Poles in the Holocaust as well? Of course not. I believe it is insulting to the Jewish people to include other groups deaths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.12.131 (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The intro is misleading. Is not recognized as purely Jewish event. But apparently there is an attempt to have it recognized as a Jewish event. Some think the plight of "other people" is inferior and not worthy of being mentioned here, probably should be deported to other articles. Oxford (the Holocaust) The mass murder of Jews under the German Nazi regime during the period 1941-5. Mirriam Webster: the Holocaust the killing of millions of Jews and other people by the Nazis during World War II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.215.244 (talk) 13:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

"the Holocaust is universally recognized as a Jewish event…" No, it isn't. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is disgusting, it is inaccurate and should be changed. They are directly pushing out false information and not representing the full extent of the event. How dare they say recognising other peoples death in the Holocaust is an 'insult' . This is why no one can rely on Wikipedia for anything, because you have people like that who are more concerned with upholding an agenda rather than facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.89.123 (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I was just about to make the same comments as the OP. The Holocaust was not just the attempted extermination of the Jews, it was an attempted extermination of all people classified as 'undesirables' by the Nazis. It is only considered a 'Jewish event' (that in itself is horrifying as 'events' are usually joyful occasions) because when it was first discovered the western world didn't care about the killing of disabled people (seen as worthless degenerates up until very recently) or homosexuals (illegal until recently and still illegal in many places) or Slavs/Poles (they were part of the eastern block after the war so the West didn't care) etc. I am changing the intro to reflect the reality: that the Holocaust was the extermination of 'undesirables'. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 15:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Revert of figure of 11 Million: diff This is relevant to the above section on changing the intro. This issue has been discussed many times on this page. The introduction makes it clear that the Holocaust is about the genocide or mass murder of European Jews. This is the definition used by major historians who are experts on the period which is made clear in footnote 3. Up until now there has not been a consensus to change this. That the Nazis carried out other genocides and massacres, some of which have their own WP articles, is clear.--Joel Mc (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I should add that what is confusing about the article is not the introduction but all the stuff that has been tacked on which while important, does not pertain to the mass murder of the Jews.--Joel Mc (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This discussion clearly shows that there is no consensus for your revert whatsoever. This thread clearly comes to the conclusion that Gaia Octavia Agrippa (talk · contribs)'s change is the one that matches consensus, so your edit should be reverted. I agree with Gaia's version as well. The full eleven million should be included in the first sentence.--^Melody _Lavender 11:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your support @Melody Lavender:. I agree that the consensus of the discussion above supported my edit. I also made sure to stress targeting of the Jews in the opening sentence. Here's what I put, I think it is a good compromise Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 16:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

“ The Holocaust ... was a genocide in which approximately 11 million people, including six million Jews, were killed by the Nazi regime and its collaborators ”

A reply to Melody above: a consensus was required to insert the 11 million not for my revert, the few recent comments completely ignore a long lasting discussion and certainly do not represent a consensus for changing the figure. I among many would not go along with the change. I have explained this position already here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Holocaust&oldid=625056062#6_million_or_11_million.3F more down below.( BTW I had placed my explanation in a new section at the end of the talk page which you changed. A chronological order of the sections faciliates an ongoing discussion, a normal practice I believe) Joel Mc (talk) 12:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Mommsen quote

I agree with the 09:20, 27 November 2014‎ edit by Giraffedata that the quote is excessive, but Mommsen is an important expert and his three forms are generally used by other historians, perhaps under different names, i.e. Friedlander uses the term redemptive antisemitism for the violent racist form. I have paraphrased Mommsen's forms and re-inserted the reference.Joel Mc (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

The reference for this quote is to a primary source (Mommsen himself is interviewed). Our manual of style asks for secondary sources, so you would have to find books or journal articles by other authors that quotes Mommsen's theory.--^Melody _Lavender 11:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This reference is not what is usually meant by primary source. Mommsen is interviewed by a Yad Vashem team which quoted him in their published interview. He has written the same thing in one of his books, but it is in German.--Joel Mc (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not a "primary source" at all (not that there's any rule against using primary sources). The real issue is whether it is sufficiently noteworthy to be given such prominence. Paul B (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Joel Mc An interview in that form (with direct quotations, word by word) is a classic example of a primary source by any academic standard. And yes, there are rules against using primary sources, Paul Barlow, see WP:RS.--^Melody _Lavender 20:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not by any stretch a "classic example of a primary source". This is a scholar summarising his research. The fact that it is spoken rather than written is irrelevant. A lecture by a scholar is also not a primary source. You seem to have next to no idea what a primary source is. Regarding "rules against using primary sources". Why don't you read WP:RS. You will find there is no ban on primary sources as you initially claimed. So you are wrong on both counts. If you want to debate the issue go to WP:RSN. Paul B (talk) 20:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The link you're posting goes to a noticeboard, Paul. Mommsen is the original source for his theory. A lecture by a scholar about his own theory is a primary source. While primary sources may be allowed under some circumstances, an important high profile article with lots of traffic that seems to be locked down all the time for edit wars (seriously?) is certainly no place for any leniency on sources. You'd have deniers roaming the place in no time. If you couldn't find the place on the page I linked which according to you I didn't read, here is the link to the section: WP:WPNOTRS. --^Melody _Lavender 06:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is another link that also directly explains primary, secondary, tertiary sources: WP:WPNOTRS. It also specifically mentions that you should, like I said, use common sense on when to allow primary sources. Again, a difficult topic like this one is obviously not the place, imho.--^Melody _Lavender 07:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion of the 5 million non-Jews

There has been an effort to remove any reference to the five million non-Jews from the lead section apparently invoking the "uniqueness" argument discussed further down in the article. This has gone so far as to suggest that contrary opinions are "Fringe." While I absolutely agree that we can't just say that the total number is eleven million, we can't ignore the very significant debate on this subject which definitely exists within mainstream academic circles. I adjusted the text to reflect the controversy while giving weight to the six million. This seems to be a reasonable compromise. I would like some consensus however in the event that there is disagreement and a desire to adopt the "uniqueness" argument as the official position of Wikipedia based on reliable source coverage. If the more expansive view is indeed Fringe then we would also need to heavily edit that section to reflect this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. It is demonstrably false to assert that suggestions by credible historians that non-Jewish victims should be counted amongst those included in the Holocaust are 'fringe'. Our article cites multiple sources which argue the contrary. This is a controversial argument, but that is no reason to exclude it from the article - and if it is in the article, it should also be noted in the lede. AndyTheGrump (talk)

I agree that we need to reach some consensus. I've asked for the page to have temporary full protection to stop edit wars etc until an consensus can be reached. The question is: should we include the deaths of non-Jews in the first sentence of the introduction? Unless someone has a better question? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 02:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not in the first sentence. It's in the second. The first references only the six million. However, the real question is can we exclude any mention of the controversy from the opening paragraph of the article where the very term is being defined? I think not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all, the issue here is about a definition, not about the "uniqueness" argument which is something quite different and a bit of a red herring in this discussion. The major historians of this period writing in English use the definition of the Holocaust as the mass murder of the Jews. (The French do not have this problem as the term "Shoah" does not include the 5 million non-jews) I still have yet to see a reference to a major historian which includes in the definition the mass murder of 5 million non-Jews. Secondly, I have no problem in mentioning the 5 million, it just that they aren't usually part of the definition. Thirdly, I have no problem putting in that there is controversy about the definition--I would like to see the multiple sources that would include the 5 million--Niewyk et al list 4 possible definitions, but in the end do not opt for including all of the 5 million non-jews. The references they examine are not using the term as a proper noun, i.e. The Holocaust, but in a more generic sense, i.e. the other holocaust, the Polish holocaust etc, thus interchangeable with the word genocide. Finally, I reverted Gaia's insertion of 11 million because it did not represent a consensus. I am not interested in an edit war, but would appreciate if the the 6 million figure remains until a consensus for change is found. I would not agree to adding the 5 million figure to the definition of the Holocaust Joel Mc (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Shoah is clearly defined, Holocaust is not. Niewyk (p. 51-52) states that there is a trend back towards usage of a very broad definition, including all Nazi victims. He says it's mostly too complicated to analyze this, and says scholars make it easier for themselves by narrowing the definition and then proceeds to use a narrow definition for his own work. Also, according to this author (p.45), the term was used during the time of WW II to describe the entirety of the massacres. Another thing to consider is WP:COMMONNAME. The common name for the Nazi mass murders is Holocaust. The original intention behind the ideology of the Nazis was based on Eugenics - first and foremost, according to this ideology, they wanted to murder everyone who didn't belong to their vision of a so called master race. The real execution of this plan did turn out to be first and foremost an incomporable genocide of Jews. I think the current version of the lead is a good solution. And I'm not sure that the issue of uniqueness is unrelated. In any case the uniqueness aspect is not adequately covered in the article. There's a tiny section at the bottom that has only primary refs. --^Melody _Lavender 21:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• This is the link to the ref that was mentioned by me and Joel Mc above:

Niewyk, Donald L. and Nicosia, Francis R. The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, Columbia University Press, 2000, pp. 45-52. --^Melody _Lavender 21:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I shall give it a proper read through tomorrow. Interesting that he highlights the controversy around the definition of The Holocaust and the fixed definition of Sho'ah: perhaps we could keep the article, The Holocaust', as an overarching summary of the wider definition (Jews and non-Jews) with a re-direct to Sho'ah for the Jew-centric/narrow definition (that sounds terrible and I apologise, I'm just not sure what else to call it) holocaust? One quick point of interest: p. 46 says 'roughly half of the 11,000,000 European Jews' were murdered this contrasts with the 2/3 of 9 million European Jews in the article. I also wonder of there is a difference in European vs American definitions (I'm British).Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 00:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Didn't Wiesenthal pull that number out of a hat? What research corroborates his claim? 71.169.181.208 (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Definition of "Holocaust"

M-W has this meaning a "burnt sacrifice". Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 12:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. One of the key differences between the two is that a dictionary has one entry per word, while an encyclopedia has one entry per subject. The subject of this article is defined in the first sentence of the article, and the etymology of the word holocaust is covered in the first section after the lede. VQuakr (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand any of what you typed. Can you explain more clearly why the word is not being described as meaning what it means? Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 00:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The subject of this article is the Holocaust - the genocidal historical event occurring before and during WW2. This is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary, and we do not give alternative definitions of words in our articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The word has multiple meanings, and we have one article per notable meaning. See, for example, here and here. VQuakr (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems contrived. The word was chosen "arbitrarily" based on its meaning before World War II. So that's what the article should reflect that it means. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 13:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster gives the Nazi-related sense as the principal one, and then gives "burnt sacrifice" as the first in a chronological ordering of senses. In any case, we don't need a reference book to tell us that anybody talking about (or coming to Wikipedia to look up) "holocaust" is much more likely to be interested in the events of the 1930s and 1940s than in any other meaning! It is the primary meaning of the term in the English language now. Barnabypage (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Right, and the word was chosen by well educated people who knew exactly what it meant. Burnt sacrifice. There's no reason to omit this from the article because it certainly has not been an oversight in the use of the word. Merriam-Webster is very conscientious in its etymologies and the ordering of definitions. Holocaust plainly means, as a word, burnt sacrifice, and was chosen with that in mind because that was the traditional meaning. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 16:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

M-W is clear that senses after the principal sense are given in chronological order, not order of importance. Its lexicographers may well be conscientious in ordering in that sense, but they are clearly not endorsing "burnt offering" as a meaning of any more importance than the others just by putting it at the top of the list. BTW, Oxford specifies the "burnt sacrifice" meaning as being "historical", Collins calls it "rare", and American Heritage notes a broadening of meaning since the 1600s.

In any case, as pointed out below, the "burnt sacrifice" meaning is referred to the in the article. I'm not actually sure how you're suggesting the article should be different...? Barnabypage (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No, the word was not "chosen by well educated people who knew exactly what it meant." It wasn't really 'chosen' at all in any straightforward sense. In fact the word holocaust was very widely used for various large scale massacres before WWII, and also for destructive fires. It wasn't until the end of the 1970s that it became commonly used to refer to Nazi murders, following a TV series called Holocaust (note it wasn't called The Holocaust; even then the term was a word rather than a name. Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, for example never uses the word, and well into the 60s the most common meaning of a holocaust would have been the much-feared "nuclear holocaust"). It was simply a word that was commonly used for acts of obliterative mass muder and destruction, but which has in recent decades has come to be the standard term to apply to Nazi mass-murders. No group of people got together to decide on the choice of the word, it evolved in actual usage. In any case, as has already been pointed out, the article does discuss the etymology. Paul B (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree the word means what it means. Would someone mind fixing the lede to reflect the actual etymology and meaning? Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 18:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

No. This is an article on the genocide, not the word. Again, this is not a dictionary. VQuakr (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Please acquaint yourself with the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. Dictionaries are concerned with words, encyclopedias are concerned with subjects. The article is appropriate for the title. Acroterion (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing to fix. The article already discusses etymology in an appropriate section. Do you think the article on the Reign of Terror would be improved by having the evolving definitions and etymologies of 'reign' and 'terror' in the lede? Paul B (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Obotlig's previous rantings about Jews and race-mixing on other pages make it clear that he'd nothing but a sad neo-Nazi troll. Paul B (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trolling, it doesn't make sense not to explain what the word means. It's your article, enjoy. Obotlig ☣ ^interrogate 00:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

As several people have said - (a) the word primarily means the Nazi activity and thus the article's lede already does exactly what you're asking for, i.e. explaining what the term means; (b) because the word it also means - or at one time meant - a "burnt sacrifice", that is already explained on the page; (c) Wikipedia is mainly about broader subjects than words, and the article is about the subject "the Holocaust", not the word "holocaust". There is also already an article Holocaust (sacrifice), linked to this one via the disambiguation page, for those who want to know more about that subject.

If you still find the situation unsatisfactory could you spell out exactly what you think the lede ought to say, bearing in mind that its function is to be an overview and summary of the article as a whole? Barnabypage (talk) 08:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Peruvian Rescuer

Please include Madeleine Truel in the list of individual rescuers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.237.119.116 (talk) 04:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Replace Poles with Slavs - its more accurate.

More than just non-Jewish ethnic Poles were also killed during the war, this includes Ukrainians, Belarusians, Russians and other Slavs.

"Non-Jewish victims of broader Nazi crimes include Gypsies, Poles, communists, homosexuals, Soviet POWs, and the mentally and physically disabled. In total, approximately 11 million people were killed, including one million Jewish children alone."

To:

"Non-Jewish victims of broader Nazi crimes include Gypsies, Slavs, communists, homosexuals, Soviet POWs, and the mentally and physically disabled. In total, approximately 11 million people were killed, including one million Jewish children alone."--92.23.122.67 (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's less accurate, considering Poles are also Slavs and so are Soviet POWs.... but I digress.

Though I try to maintain an encyclopedic tone, it pisses me off when Russians try to co-opt the Holocaust for propaganda, just as Stalin did——especially since the majority of Neo-Nazis in the world are Russian. We get it, you did most of the fighting with Hitler, and we should acknowledge that more. Lots of Soviets died on the Eastern Front and they saved our asses on many occasions. And yes, Nazis did have a racist hatred of Slavs which reflects the high death rate of Soviet POWS. If it were expedient for Hitler to kill a whole bunch of Slavs, would he? Perhaps. Lots of Germans recommended the genocide of Jews in theory, but only Hitler carried it out. But even though the USSR *was in a brutal war with Germany* (that part is important), they didn't hate Slavs, even combatants—enough to consciously seek them out, ghettoize them, and exterminate them at the expense of the German State. If they captured Slavic POWs in battle, sure they'd kill some of them... but Jews (and Roma) were killed DESPITE the war, not BECAUSE of it. The Siege of Leningrad was a military operation—a barbaric one which killed mostly civilians, but hey, you can say the same about the Bombing of Tokyo. The siege of Leningrad ended when Hitler realized it was futile. The Kraków Ghetto was liquidated only when enough Jews would be killed. Hence, the Siege of Leningrad was a "war crime", not a genocide. Slavs were not persecuted to nearly the extent Poles were under German occupation, not to mention Jews (for which a comparison is laughable trivialization). This equivocating needs to end. It's great that wikipedia is recognizing Nazi crimes against various groups instead of lumping all the victims into "Jews" simply because the vast majority of civilian deaths were Jewish, but there's something wrong when a genocide defined as "the death of 6 million Jews" has an asterisk next to it. In fact, I've seen racists on forums say that "Jews exaggerate the Holocaust" because "More Russians died than Jews" (you mean more Russian soldiers???)... I wonder where they got that idea. Anyway, emotion aside... just no. Wikipedia should not be a platform for revisionism. --Monochrome_Monitor 19:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not a forum, and your ill-informed commentary is of no relevance whatsoever to article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Since you didn't elaborate on how my commentary was "ill-informed", I'll assume that was an ad hominem and not pursue further. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hollande

Why the hell are Hollande's personal views in the article? In a quote box, even! Why is this politician singled out for special attention`? May I add the thoughts of every politician I can find? or is Hollande uniquely special? --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hollande is the president of France, a country with a complex and important connection to the Holocaust. He is not some random politician. The quote is of a public speech, not his private thoughts. Whether to include a quote is subject to editorial discretion, and similar to photographs, inclusion of additional quotes is subject to diminishing returns. Specifically, adding the thoughts of every politician you can find would violate WP:POINT. If you think a different quote (or no quote at all) would better improve our readers' understanding of the subject, by all means please share your ideas. VQuakr (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

"The quote is of a public speech, not his private thoughts."

His personal opinion remains just that, regardless of whether it is expressed publicly or privately.

"France, a country with a complex and important connection to the Holocaust."

The criteria for including politicians' personal views on one or another aspect of the Holocaust is their country having "a complex and important connection to the Holocaust"? But then we need to include the personal opinions of British, German, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian, Italian, Romanian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian… you get the idea—unless, of course, there is some reason why the French president is so special.

"If you think a different quote (or no quote at all) would better…"

Yes, I think the personal opinions of politicians with precisely zero experience of, knowledge of, and involvement with the event—Hollande wasn't even born when it happened, and has probably read less of the secondary literature than even you and I have—ought not to be included. Hollande is not a Holocaust scholar, survivor, perpetrator… anything. He's just a deeply unpopular French politician. Unless, as I said in my first post above, there is a reason why this particular French politician is so special and important that his personal opinions are not only mentioned in the article but given the same level of prominence, by virtue of being dumped in a quote box, as leading authorities like Raul Hilberg—well, then he ought to be snipped out. All the quote amounts to is "the most unpopular French president in history thinks the Holocaust is unique"; in all honesty, this doesn't really add anything to what what is already too-long article.

To summarise:

1) Hollande is not a Holocaust scholar, survivor, witness…

2) Given 1), the quote can add nothing to an article that is already too long.

3) Given 1), there is no reason to mention, let alone highlight, this French politician's personal views.

--YeOldeGentleman (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I find it hard to disagree. Though the quote is elegant and fits well structurally, but there's no particular reason to care about Hollande's opinion. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

A quote can have value because it is elegant and fits well structurally. Hollande is the French head of state, as such I find the discounting of what he says during public speeches as "personal opinion" to be quite silly. Similarly, I find the criteria that you suggest - that a quote may only be useful if the source is a Holocaust survivor, scholar, or witness - to be arbitrary. It is perfectly acceptable for us to pick a quote and use it, and even if there are a multitude of equally useful quotes available we are under no obligation to use them all. If we think the article is too long, though, I guess it is as good as any place to cut out. VQuakr (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the quote should be kept. It represents the uniqueness argument pretty well, whereas we have other quotes that dissent with the uniqueness theory. If the article is too long, we should make separate articles for German crimes against each minority group, so as to not lump all groups together under the word "holocaust". It's good that it documents it, but considering the Holocaust is usually considered to be the genocide of Jews, semantically, I think to address length we should split this into a few different articles. For example, Pojramos, Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs, Action T4, etc, repeat some information mentioned here. A similar precedent would be the split between the Armenian and Assyrian Genocides. We could then put Holocaust in a larger page on "Nazi crimes against humanity". --Monochrome_Monitor 22:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the quote should be kept. Ykantor (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

"In my opinion, the quote should be kept."

But your unsupported opinion is not relevant, since this is not a voting exercise.

we have other quotes that dissent with the uniqueness theory

Not in quote boxes we don't! And you've ignored the fact that all the other quotes are by people who actually know something about it. Hollande is just some French politician, just another guy on the street as far as personal involvement and knowledge go! All the responses here ignored the point that Hollande is no authority or anything. As it stands, his views are granted the same import as survivors and people have dedicated their entire lives to studying it. Why on earth is this situation acceptable? It's actually pretty insulting. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not insulting. Being melodramatic is unhelpful. Hollande is (as I noted above) the French head of state. Characterizing what he says in an official capacity as a "personal opinion" is silly. @Monochrome Monitor: I think you and I are the only ones who have voiced any usable support for keeping the quote. What about losing the quotebox and just quoting Hollande inline? VQuakr (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It is insulting to suggest that the most unpopular French president in history is in the same league as Holocaust survivors and Holocaust scholars. Nothing melodramatic about that, just stating the obvious.

"Characterizing what he says in an official capacity as a "personal opinion" is silly."

You keep conflating speaking in public and private with, respectively, objective and subjective statements. His personal opinion is just that, regardless of whether it is expressed in public or in private. I am uncertain how I can make myself clearer on this point, it seems really quite obvious.

"Hollande is (as I noted above) the French head of state."

You did, but I am still awaiting why this fact is of any relevance when he is talking about something he knows no more about than a layman. The same argument can be presented by me if I introduced a quote by the Polish president, the Queen of England, and so on for the head of state of any country touched by the Holocaust. And France was by no means the most touched by it: that tragic honour belongs to Poland. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

- @VQuakr and Monochrome Monitor: : Will you please count me as a supporter as well. Ykantor (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The same argument can be presented by me if I introduced a quote by the Polish president, the Queen of England, and so on for the head of state of any country touched by the Holocaust. Not an argument for removal of the quote in question. Politicians, particularly heads of state, speaking in a public capacity are speaking on behalf of the countries they represent. They also do not independently write their speeches. I have said nothing about objective or subjective statements. VQuakr (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Why do you have such a problem with Hollande? He's the Prime Minister of France, The Vichy Regime was active in executing the Holocaust, and France didn't acknowledge this role for fifty years or so. The fact that he called relativism trivialization, in this unique position, is very notable. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Note how two of the three "supporters" are self-identified pro-Zionist Jews. This demographic issue is, it seems, resulting in serious structural bias in this article in general. Ignore all the other massacres of the 20th century, they're all insignificant compared to the shoah. Thus we must have a section on "uniqueness". Any criticism of this uniqueness section, even if by a Jewish scholar, mustn't be included, and must be deleted (often sneakily as Monochrome did a few months ago) without consensus. If this criticism is to be retained, it must have a "further clarification" tag and every aspect of it, even if it only comprises a sentence, must be scrutinized word-for-word(what Ykantor did). Only the lives of the chosen people matter after all. Goyim's deaths are "ordinary", whilst ours are "unique", and if you disagree, you're an "anti-Semite". This attitude is likely Talmudic in origin, which documents in copious detail the Jewish religious contempt for gentiles. Regardless, I wholly agree with the proposal - the box should be removed. You can't go around creating boxes for every statement you personally happen to like, even if it is a head of state. If it was a quote by, say, Himmler, or Eichmann, or someone else directly connected with the event, it would be fine, but not Hollande. Those were his personal views.JDiala (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Please confine discussion on ways to improve the article, and do not comment on other editors per WP:SOAPBOX, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF.

Finkelstein

@Monochrome Monitor: @Ykantor: Please read WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:VERIFY. Note the Google citation index for the work: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=16867769263411460043&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en ; 389 results. It is thus a work of scholarship, a notable one at that. It's also hardly fringe, as lead Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg has defended its thesis, and many reviewers have defended it. The book has its own article, and is very notable—much more so than the other works which were cited. It is published, notable and claims made by it are attributed to it. There is no reason for it to be excluded. If you continue to play this game on deliberately excluding prolific scholars to maintain your perverse, POV Zionist narrative in a section ["Uniqueness"] which shouldn't even exist, I will RfC. JDiala (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yours: "If you continue to play this game on deliberately excluding prolific scholars to maintain your perverse, POV Zionist narrative in a section ["Uniqueness"] which shouldn't even exist, I will RfC."

• it is amazing that you try to frighten us by calling an RFC. On the contrary, we would like to have an RFC. I can't believe that too many people here believe in Finkelstein lies.
• "The Zionist narrative"? You have to study the Holocaust. A lot of the murdered Jews were not Zionist at all, probably most of them. They were killed because they were Jews. The Nazis did not care whether the victims opposed or believed in Zionism. It suggested that you read N.Y. times review of Finkelstein's book, with its internal contradictions and vague writing. e.g. In order "to truly learn from the Nazi holocaust," he asserts, "its physical dimension must be reduced and its moral dimension expanded." Do you understand this sentence? do we have to hide Auschwitz? Ykantor (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ykantor: That's irrelevant. Being negatively reviewed [that was a horrible review by the way, hardly addressed anything substantive; just plays that "elders of zion" card and often attacks him directly] isn't sufficient to warrant exclusion. Let me repeat: the source is notable, secondary, due and published and, moreover, the claims its makes are attributed [ie. Finkelstein claims...] to it. It is a biased source, and not representative of the mainstream opinion, but those two issues are also not sufficient to warrant exclusion. As noted, lead Holocaust historian, Raul Hilberg, agreed with the book's thesis. Its reception was mixed. Again, there is absolutely nothing, per Wikipedia policy, which would suggest it should be removed.

Now, I will explain the "Zionist narrative" issue. I struck it down, but it was clearly interpreted the wrong way, as I have been threatened with A-I sanctions. I would like to make absolutely clear that I am not denying the Holocaust. The reason I brought up the Zionist narrative is because, at least in my view and that of some scholars in the field, that people like you go to great lengths—absurdly great lengths, as you and Monochrome have shown—to maintain the Holocaust as a both unique and Jewish event, and deliberately exclude dissenting views. This is the more extreme view regarding the Holocaust; that the Holocaust marked the climax of a fanatical, eternal Gentile hatred of Jews. This is, of course, quite interconnected with the view that a Jewish state is necessary, or Zionism. If the Holocaust was simply another genocide, and the Jews were just another victim of the many demographic groups the Nazis slaughtered, then the travail of European Jewry during that period fails to take on any unique significance, and thus the extreme thesis of an 'eternal', 'irrational' hatred becomes more flimsy. All of the sources in the "uniqueness" section support this "uniqueness" theory. Per WP:NPOV, it is necessary to provide criticism, and Finkelstein's work is excellent for that. JDiala (talk) 06:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

All right, please lets try to be WP:civil. I presume JDiala's reference to Zionism was about current/contemporary/modern bias, am I right @JDiala:? I agree that Finkelstein's book is notable and his view point is hardly so far out of the game park that shouldn't be included. At most it falls under Wikipedia:Fringe theories, which warrants an inclusion stating that it is a controversial or minority viewpoint.

@Ykantor:. No one here is denying The Holocaust, there is no reason to go there. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 00:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gaia Octavia Agrippa:Yes, I apparently did not make myself clear enough, and I apologize for that. I did not deny the Holocaust. By "prolific scholars" I did not mean deniers, I meant Finkelstein; and by "Zionist narrative" I did not mean the occurrence of the event itself, but the "uniqueness" theory. JDiala (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with user:JDiala, Finkelstein is a reliable source and both points of view should be represented, as per WP:NPOV Blaue Max (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Gaia Octavia Agrippa: I watched your contributions and it seems that you are very valuable editor. Hence your words concerning Zionism are are especially hurting. What is the connection between Zionism / Israel and the Holocaust? What Israeli interest is supposedly connected to the Holocaust? During Israel first years, Israel was weak and the powers refused to sell her defensive weapons, although the Holocaust just happened. Only when they considered Israel as a strong nation (after the Israeli victory of 1967 war), the American started to support Israel ( while the USSR and France joined the enemy side). Israel survival has nearly nothing to do with the Holocaust. However, a lot of people are against Israel, because of reasons which has nothing to do with Israel deeds. Those people like those conspiracy theories (e.g. Finkelstein) and happy to quote his writing instead of checking it themselves. e.g. what did he meant by In order "to truly learn from the Nazi holocaust," he asserts, "its physical dimension must be reduced and its moral dimension expanded."

A- What physical dimension must be reduced? are the researching historians receiving commands from Israel? or from a Jewish committee? Ykantor (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

If this is responding to anything that User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa said, I'm a loss to understand what it is. This mini-essay seems to a case for WP:NOTAFORUM as it does not in any way address the issue under debate and includes highly inappropriate inflammatory claims about alleged motivations. Paul B (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

- Sorry, I accept that the alleged motivations are a case of WP:NOTAFORUM

- I wonder why JDiala accusations are accepted here with no remarks. He says that supposedly:

• B-JDiala : " the Holocaust marked the climax of a fanatical, eternal Gentile hatred of Jews. This is,... interconnected with the view that a Jewish state is necessary, or Zionism. If the Holocaust was simply another genocide, and the Jews were just another victim of the many demographic groups the Nazis slaughtered, then the travail of European Jewry during that period fails to take on any unique significance, and thus the extreme thesis of an 'eternal', 'irrational' hatred becomes more flimsy." This is another anti Zionist propaganda. There is no necessary connection between the uniqueness and Zionism. Zionist ideas were promoted long before the Holocaust and hypothetically, if there was no Holocaust, the Zionists would be still advancing a Jewish state.
• C-JDiala : "the extreme thesis of an 'eternal', 'irrational' hatred" . JDiala falsely present it as a Zionist attitude, which is not true. There is an ongoing relevant debate between scholars, but it is not related to Zionism. Surprisingly (for JDiala) , some main stream Zionist historian are opposing the 'eternal', 'irrational hatred' attitude.
• D- JDiala :" people like you go to great lengths—absurdly great lengths, as you and Monochrome have shown—to maintain the Holocaust as a both unique and Jewish event". I have not said that at all, although I agree with it. My only claim was that Finkelstein is a "fringe" source, and should not be used. As Jdiala claims that "Holocaust historian, Raul Hilberg, agreed with the book's thesis", he could have quoted Hilberg and solve the problem.

@JDiala :

E-- You should have known that a tag(e.g. "Elucidate") should not be deleted unless the issue is solved.

-you undeleted the sentence: "He writes that the reason these claims persist is because claims of Holocaust uniqueness also confer "unique entitlement" to Jews, and serve as "Israel's prize alibi". This sentence is an antisemitic propaganda and it is not directly referring to the issue of uniqueness. It is much better to explain Finkelstein view (e.g. why it not unique) as the "Elucidate" tag indicates. Ykantor (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read the work myself. Have both @Ykantor: and @JDiala: read it? I would be happier any conclusions about the book were being made having read it and reviews of it, rather than just reviews which may have their own agenda (eg trying to make it sound fantastic or deriding it as anti-Semitic). I should also point out here that anti-Israeli comments are not in themselves anti-Semitic.

However, the scentance quoted by Ykantor above does need to be rewritten so it is clear that that is Finkelstein's view. At the moment the only evidence of that in the wording it 'He writes'. Perhaps 'he argues' is more clear cut. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 17:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ykantor: That is what is written in the work(I have the book). It is paraphrased; I have the actual quotes in the citation, so if you believe I erred in the paraphrase, you may point that out. I have offered arguments affirming the book's reliability as a source, so long as, again, its claims are attributed to the author. Unless you can respond to them, I see no reason why that particular claim should not be included. Labelling it "antisemetic" is simply not an argument. It's an emotive, loaded charge to exclude an otherwise reliable claim. JDiala (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

- I will appreciate it if you refer to points A to E, mentioned previously.

- The antisemitic propaganda is consistently using the axioms:

1. It is inherent to Jews to cheat, tel lies, use their victims blood, and all sort of evil doing.
2. The Jews are powerful and controls a lot of states , organizations and companies. etc. the financial system, the movies industry, the U.S.A etc.
3. The Jews are well organized and the body which control the Jews is actually directing all those states , organizations and companies.

recently the terms Zionist or Israel are used instead of or together with the term Jews.

This Finkelstein sentence: Holocaust uniqueness also confer "unique entitlement" to Jews, and serve as "Israel's prize alibi, is based on those three Antisemitic axioms:

- I repeat: This sentence is not directly related to the Issue of uniqueness, and it is an antisemitic propaganda. Don't you think that it is better to highlight Finkelstein's view why the Holocaust is not unique? At the moment, the article has no such an explanation. Once this opinion is explained, then it could be proven wrong easily. Ykantor (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I asked Jdiala in his talkpage:I will appreciate it if you refer to my notes at [1] ((here)). thanks. Ykantor (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ykantor: That is WP:OR. There may be fringe, radical people who believe that Finkelstein is an antisemite; however, that is simply a smear meant to delegitimize his work. He himself is Jewish, and son of Holocaust survivors. Again, I don't know how much more clear I have to make myself - you cannot remove an otherwise reliable source on the sole basis of the fact that you perceive it to be "antisemetic". This is no different than, say, a Muslim individual wanting to remove criticism of Islam on the basis that it is Islamophobic. That is absurd. Wikipedia is not censored. The extra sentence is there to provide context; he argues that the "unique entitlement" and "Israel's prize alibi" are reasons that the uniqueness theory exist. It is related to the topic at hand. Regarding your "A-E" points, again, the Zionism connection is irrelevant. If you found what I said offensive, well, I removed it. If you personally disagree with Finkelstein's argument in the book concerning the relationship between Israel and the uniqueness theory, that's fine but it's simply not pertinent to the core issue. The validity of his argument is not what the problem is, but rather whether or not his claims should be included. I see no reason why not. It provides balance to the "uniqueness" section. JDiala (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• In my opinion Finkelstein views are Wikipedia:Fringe theories. User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa wrote here: "At most it falls under Wikipedia:Fringe theories, which warrants an inclusion stating that it is a controversial or minority viewpoint." User:Gaia Octavia Agrippa seems to know the policies, but what about " Ideas supported only by a tiny minority may be explained in articles devoted to those ideas if they are notable."? (WP:PROFRINGE), or "According to Jimmy Wales:...Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether"?
• FYours "a Muslim individual wanting to remove criticism of Islam on the basis that it is Islamophobic". Take for instance tthe Regensburg lecture Islamophobic incident. In my opion it shoud not be included in an article concerning Islam, because it is a fringe theory.
• Yours: "The extra sentence is there to provide context; he argues that the "unique entitlement" and "Israel's prize alibi" are reasons that the uniqueness theory exist.".
  • As asked few times, it would be much better to cite Finkelstein facts and not generalized accusations. A fact might be verified or proven false, but "Israel's prize alibi" is something that I do not understand, and seems like an hot air. As an example, in his book "he Holocaust Industry" page 83 he says that some of those newly reclassified as holocaust survivors are 100000 polish Jews that found refuge in Russia and were saved. This is one of his examples for survivors numbers inflation. But, are they receiving reparation money? One lady in my family succeeded to run away to Russia and all of her family members were slaughtered., including a lot of cousins with children. She said she never received any reparation money. BTW if an individual is running away because his neighbor wants to kill him, is not he entitled to some penalty money from this neighbor? Ykantor (talk) 21:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ykantor: Your personal critiques of Finkelstein's work are somewhat irrelevant. Practically all works of scholarship are, in one way or another, flawed, but they can nevertheless be included. Most of his statistics are taken from Raul Hilberg. Fringe theories, in certain circumstances, may be included so long as they are not undue. Finkelstein's work, at least in the uniqueness section, takes up no more than a single sentence, which is fair. It's not some elaborate section discussing how the Holocaust has been exploited; it's a mere sentence, and it's only there to balance out the other "uniquneness" claims, which clearly trivialize the deaths of non-Jews both during the Nazi period and other genocides. JDiala (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Yours: "Finkelstein's work, at least in the uniqueness section, takes up no more than a single sentence". Yes, but the sentence has no substance. Although repeatedly asking, you still do not state a factual sentence, and continue with the "hot air" attitude, of supposedly Israeli exploiting it for benefits: "claims of Holocaust uniqueness also confer "unique entitlement" to Jews, and serve as "Israel's prize alibi". Sorry, but this is a pure antisemitic propaganda. Where are the facts? what "unique entitlement" was received by the Jews? what are the supposed benefits for Israel? The propaganda could have been avoided if Finkelstein factual reasons were used.
2. Gyours: ""uniquneness" claims, which clearly trivialize the deaths of non-Jews both during the Nazi period and other genocides." The article states: "Since the 1960s, the term has come to be used by scholars and popular writers to refer specifically to the Nazi genocide of Jews.". You want to extend the term "Holocaust" and include other Nazi massacres and killing, but to limit it to the WW2 period (if I understand you). In Holocaust (disambiguation) the term is extended further and includes "Sikh Holocaust, either of two 18th century mass killings" too. Is there any limit to the extension process? if the Armenian Genocide is not included in the term Holocaust, are the Armenians victims "clearly trivialize"d? Ykantor (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

@Ykantor: Yes, but the sentence has no substance That is your opinion. Those are the views expressed by a reliable source. I could just as well say those other "uniqueness" claims lack substance, which they indeed do. Sorry, but this is a pure antisemitic propaganda. Where are the facts? what "unique entitlement" was received by the Jews? Again, I have to keep repeating myself. Because you think it's antisemetic doesn't make it so, nor does it mean it isn't reliable. Finkelstein is a Jew. Finkelstein is the son of Holocaust survivors. I highly doubt he is "antisemetic". Finkelstein has elaborate arguments in his book, but going in depth would be giving him too much weight. If you would like, however, for me to quote other passages from the book which document the issue more thoroughly, I would be happy to do so. In Holocaust (disambiguation) the term is extended further and includes This is because the term "holocaust" is a generic term. There is a difference from the word "holocaust" and The Holocaust, which is concerned with the events of World War 2. Ethnic Poles, Gypsies, Homosexuals, etc. were all murdered in the same way, under the same circumstances, as the Jews were. This is why the issue is in dispute. JDiala (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

There are objective issues with calling the Holocaust "just another genocide of another ethnic group". For you to say such a thing matches your earlier rhetoric denying Israel's right to exist. Your dubious knowledge about the Zionist movement, which began a century before the Holocaust, confirms this. Hitler's efforts to exterminate the Jewish people dwarfed that of any other ethnic group—the final death toll reflecting this. Jews comprise a majority of deaths in the 11 million figure, and comprise 75% of the civilian deaths in this figure, as Soviet POWs do not fit under the definition of genocide. Disabled Germans also do not qualify under the definition of genocide, nor do homosexuals and political dissidents, but only ethnic and religious groups. Jews and Roma were killed for simply *being*, while Leftists/homosexuals/etc. could be rehabilitated, as they weren't "enemies of the race-based state". 67-78% of Jews in Europe were massacred, proportionally orders of magnitude higher than these groups for whom Nazi crimes were not a genocide. The Auschwitz death toll was 90% Jewish, and the death facilities were intended originally for Jews, but accommodated others when it was deemed convenient. For Jews and Roma, Nazi crimes were genocide dwarfing the normal horrors of war. All other groups mentioned had a net population increase, not something normally associated with a "holocaust". You continue to trivialize the Shoah and the Pojramos by insisting all Nazi crimes, regardless of scope/nature/intent, be compared to two genocides. I find your obvious bias and ownership of a book regarded my many as antisemitic concerning. (For those who doubt the book is antisemitic, it is endorsed by David Duke.) --Monochrome_Monitor 02:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

- @ JDiala:

- What about points F, G (above)?

- In my opinion Finkelstein words are not sufficiently related to the issue, and should be replaced with his other ideas concerning the "unique" aspect directly and not by a supposed Jewish / Israeli motivation which is a pure antisemitic propaganda. Ykantor (talk) 06:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ykantor:Point F is a false analogy. The uniqueness issue and its criticisms warrant inclusion in the Holocaust article. Every single Islamophobic incident does not warrant inclusion in the Islam article. I addressed point G. I disagree with your opinion. I offered an argument against it, you haven't responded. JDiala (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: No, there is nothing wrong with calling the Holocaust just another genocide. That is precisely what it was. The amount of tragedies in world history, and in the 20th century in particular, which have resulted in deaths within the order of magnitude of the Holocaust are in the dozens at least. This is a common habit among people like yourself, rabid Jewish nationalists, pouncing on every opportunity to trivialize the deaths of other peoples[Note that Israel denies the Armenian genocide], whilst the suffering of your people has a "special status", so to speak. Thus if one person is killed from so-called Hamas rockets[upgraded fireworks], it is an international tragedy. But if you kill thousands of Palestinians, it is just an accident. Only the lives of the chosen people matter, after all. It's no coincidence that there are more Holocaust museums in the United States than there are Armenian Genocide memorials, or, for that matter, Rwandan genocide memorials, even though that was much more recent. This is interrelated with the Israel lobby as, again, discussed in the book. Finkelstein wrote a PhD thesis on Zionism. You're a teenager, judging from your birth date. His view on Zionism and its relation to the Holocaust industry is considerably more relevant than your personal opinion. That is why this was mentioned. Moreover, your exclusion of Soviet POWs is inexplicable, as is the exclusion of homosexuals, disabled Germans or political dissidents. The problem is that you're using the legal definition of genocide, which is much too rigid and, in large part, disassociated from moral reprehensibility of a particular crime. Thus if a particular subset of the mass-murdered group of people did not happen to fall into a defined [rather arbitrarily at that] category, such as ethnic or religious, they were not "real" victim, goes your logic. A number of scholars, in our case Finkelstein, but others as well as shown in the 'casualties' section, however, who have a moral compass, are able to see that, in principle, there was nothing particularly different from the mass murder, ideologically motivated, of these other groups than that of the Jews. They were considered untermensch. They were not considered members of the ideal Volksgemeinschaft. Thus they were exterminated. This is why this viewpoint is noted in the lead. Regarding David Duke, there is a serious difference between an anti-Semite giving a book a good review, and the book itself being objectively anti-Semetic. I have to repeatedly mention that Finkelstein is a Jew, a son of Holocaust survivors, and he has received praise for his work from the foremost authority on the Holocaust, Raul Hilberg. JDiala (talk) 16:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not a "rabid Jewish nationalist". That's laughable. I'm a Labor Zionist and a liberal.

As for the Armenian genocide, Israel does de facto recognize it as a genocide. There are plenty of Armenian genocide memorials ----Monochrome_Monitor 04:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)in Israel. You are not helping your case by throwing around the "Jewish supremacist" and "chosen people" canard that Jews don't care about non-Jews. Hamas rockets are not "upgraded fireworks", and there is actually very little media attention when Israelis are killed in terror attacks—much less than attacks in any other Western country. As for the "Finklestein is Jewish" point, I know. He abuses his ethnic Jewishness as an excuse. He may not hate Jews himself, but he peddles in Jew hatred. "We are all Hezbollah". What drivel. And the book itself is rather ahistorical, like its revisionism of the Six Day War.--Monochrome_Monitor 04:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: No, you're not a "liberal". The doublethink is strong in this one. How can one be liberal yet support ethnocracy, or ethnicity-based states? Regarding the Armenian genocide, de facto recognition is irrelevant. De jure recognition is what counts. Can you imagine the backlash if a state officially denied the Holocaust? Think Iran[though, even there, statements by the state leaders have been inconsistent]. Yet states routinely deny the Armenian Genocide. What possible explanation could there be for this double standard? This is where Finkelstein's thesis comes in - the industry. Also, the "revisionism" of the six-day war, if you consider "revisionism" to be anything contrary to the thesis that Israel was defending itself from an imminent attack, is more or less the scholarly consensus. There is copious literature repudiating that thesis, from Israeli scholars, though getting into this would be veering away much too significantly from what this article is about. Hezbollah is a resistance organization; I also support it. It has the right to defend itself from foreign invaders. That is, though, again, irrelevant. Levelling these vicious personal attacks against a man - an honest, principled man - who lost tenure at his university because the Israel lobby didn't like what he says, is ultimately irrelevant when it comes to Wikipedia policy. The book is reliable. The book is published. And, lastly, the book itself is much more relevant and serious than, say, the pseudo-scholarship by Jewish supremacists like Steven Katz ["The Holocaust is the only genocide that has occurred in history"] which is allowed to remain in the "uniqueness" section without controversy (if it's anti-Semetic to include Finkelstein, is it not "anti"-every other group who's been the victim of a genocide to include Steven Katz?)? JDiala (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

So far, 1. You believe Israel has no right to exist. I've met many Arabs more liberal than yourself in that regards. 2. You deny Jews are indigenous to the Land of Israel, revisionism in its own right. 3. You support Hezbollah, a terrorist organization. Was bombing a Jewish community center "resistance"? It wasn't even Israelis they were killing, it was just Jews.

I am a liberal, in the real definition of the word—not *your* double-think version. I believe Jews, as a long-persecuted minority, have the right to a state where they can safely exercise self-determination. I also believe that Kurds and Tibetans have the right to a state, does that make me "ethnocratic"? I believe that Palestinians have the right to a state, though I have some reasonable reservations out of concern for the prospect of a lasting peace. Self-determination is not "ethnocracy". What is ethnocracy is Abbas's future Palestinian state, where Jews will not be able to have citizenship—it will be completely Judenrein. What is ethnocracy is Algeria, where Berbers are forced to give their children Arab names, or Turkey, where Kurdish is banned from being taught in public schools. I disagree with Katz, his view is wrong. There have been many genocides. However, in the Nazi Genocide, the primary victims were Jews, and the secondary victims were Romani. I am very moderate, actually quite left-leaning, while YOU are the extremist. Who do you purport to represent? Palestinians will never have a state if they adopt your rejectionist attitude. The Middle East will never see peace. You do not have anyone's interests in mind but your own. You are just another white European who thinks they know what's good for people thousands of miles away. --Monochrome_Monitor 20:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: I just disagree with you there, then. Any form of liberalism which is opposed to very fundamental things, such as anti-racism, anti-discrimination, is opposed to human rights and human equality irrespective of race, which would include your conception of 'self determination', is not liberalism. There's one difference between the other groups you pointed out and the Jews- those other groups, the Kurds or the Tibetans, for example, either have or have had their land - within which their national identity has historically been based- controlled by a foreign power. Another example would be the resistance during the British occupation of India, like the Mutiny of 1857. This form of self determination, an oppressed people rising up and controlling their lives in their land is fine. The construct of Zionism, however, is different - it posits that a certain group migrate to someone else's land, kick them out, and call that self determination based on a quasi-religious form of nationalist irredentism ["my ancestors from thousands of years ago lived there"] which is so absurd it needn't be took seriously. Thus when you say Israel must remain a "Jewish state", you're legitimizing ethnic cleansing. Palestine is a land which belongs to two peoples. The idea that a single people can control all of it is ethnocracy. [the "Judenrein" card is, as with most other Zionist arguments, also a joke. Those foreign settlers are ideologically motivated migrants bent on dispossessing the Native population and stealing their land. Kicking them out isn't an injustice; it's quite righteous]. And yes, bombing that community centre [Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina] was resistance. This was in 1994 - when Israel was occupying Southern Lebanon. I see nothing immoral in what Hezbollah did. It's a fraction of the people that IDF killed as it was bombing and besieging Beirut(have you read "Pity the Nation"?). It was unintelligent, but not immoral. Again, however, we're seriously digressing. Finkelstein is reliable. Ykantor has not replied to my points. I will thus remove the "further clarification" tags. If 'further clarification' is needed for Finkelstein's statement, then it is also needed for Katz' statement. Regarding the issue of the Gypsies and the Jews being the "only victims" the genocide, that is, again, a view a number of scholars dissent from, and that controversy is noted in the lead. Around 46% of the victims of the slaughter were not Jews. Thus there's no reason Jews should be conferred a special status. That is an insult to the Poles, the Gypsies, the Soviet POWs, the Slavs and the homosexuals who were also victims of the Holocaust. JDiala (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Zionism IS oppressed people rising up and controlling their lives in their land—it had little to do with the Holocaust. Israel exists despite the Holocaust, not because of it. The British embargoed Israel—it didn't want the Jews to have a state at all, it even deported Jews to detention camps in Africa as they fled the Holocaust. The land never belonged to Arabs in the first place—that's revisionism. Likewise, Iran never belonged to Arabs, it belonged to Persians. Turkey never belonged to Arabs, it belonged to Turks. Morocco never belonged to Arabs, it belonged to the Berbers. These are not controversial. Israel never belonged to Arabs, it has only ever legitimately belonged to Jews. The Arabs in the region were all nomadic peoples, like the Bedouin. The land certainly didn't belong to the Ottomans or the Romans. "Palestine" is a word invented by the Romans who enslaved and ethnically cleansed the Jewish population of Roman-occupied Judea. You claim you are a liberal yet support ethnic cleansing. You think in black in white—"evil colonizer Jews versus angelic Palestinians". That's not liberalism, and it certainly isn't anti-racist. You deny Arabs any moral agency by defending terrorist acts as "resistance". The truth is quite more nuanced. I don't support settlement policies, but it's ridiculous to claim they are inherently malicious. Likewise, it is disingenuous to say that a "jewish state" means that other peoples won't have rights. That's nonsense, and the opposite of Jewish ethics. A Jewish state just means it's a place where the majority of people are Jews. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I think your justification of the AIMA bombing proves a prejudice against Jews worthy of an A/I ban. That's just disgusting. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

to JDiala:

You have not yet replied properly to my point F and G.

- Uniqueness. There is an Porajmos, the Romani genocide article. Will you accept that the Jewish genocide should have its own article too ? The name of this article is of secondary importance.

- Finkelstein views are absurds, but he could still be considered as an historian with such views. The problem is Finkelstein's factual statements, that a lot of them are mistakes. I asked you repeatedly to provide factual quotes, and it is a pity that you do not provide them. The Judge of Irving v Penguin Books Ltd case, found that David Irving is indeed an Holocaust denier , based on a meticulous examination of his factual finding. e.g. " Irving had knowingly used forged documents as source material.". Similarly, Finkelstein should be checked for facts and not for his "hot air" which can not be proven or unproven.

- The Israeli government does not stand behind the Armenian Genocide, which is a shame. The reason is the same one that cause government to ignore the Tibetian people oppression and their justified demand for independence. i.e real politics. But still , Israel does not deny it.

-Any justification of killing of innocent civilians, whether Jews or Arabs, is disgusting. Please Apologize.

- Yours "Those foreign settlers are ideologically motivated migrants bent on dispossessing the Native population and stealing their land.". Please check what really happened. The poor Fellahin were oppressed by their own Arab brothers, who lent them money with high interest rate so they could not pay the loans and lost their land, or the Arab feudal lords that took a too high share of their serial production. That happened under both Ottoman and Mandatory rules and was reported in local Arab newspapers . The Arab villages near Jewish areas were growing fast because they there were available jobs, while far Arab villages were hardly growing.

- yours: "Palestine is a land which belongs to two peoples." Definitely true. Since the Arabs and the Jews can not live together, the only solution is a partition. Unfortunately, the Arabs always fought against a partition and for one state in all of Palestine. Thankfully, nowadays some of them agree to a partition, but together with the "right of return" . The Israeli public, like any other public will never accept the "right of return" that transform Israel to one more Arab state with a Jewish minority. In my opinion, this is the major (and probably the only) obstacle for peace.

- Is not it better to look for a better future for both Arabs and Israelis rather than engaging in eternal wars and shootings? Why won't we try to have a better future for newborn babies, whether Israeli or Arab? Ykantor (talk) 07:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree about precedent set in Porajmos. Likewise, the Armenian, Assyrian, and Greek genocides are all different articles, when they occurred simultaneously. --Monochrome_Monitor 13:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: Worthy of an A/I ban? Ah, so Jewish supremacists like yourself can "justify" the IDF's crimes, all of which are considerably greater than magnitude than that of Hezbollah, but I can't support the Lebanese resistance? Try me. The only "revisionists" here are you. It's rather clear from the arguments you're using. It's textbook Zionist propaganda; practically copied and pasted from a hasbara handbook, contrary to the scholarly consensus expressed even by right-wing Israeli historians. For example, you noted that the name Palestine was introduced by the Romans. Normally, in the English language, if a region has been called something for nearly 2000 years, the appropriate response is not that the name is "falsified" or "erroneous", but the recognition of the fact that that is now the name. The name itself, evidently, predates the English language. For the entire history of the English language, Palestine has been referred to as Palestine. How, then, is Palestine not the correct name? If you referred to every region what it was called since before the First Century AD, we would have much different names for regions, then, wouldn't we. Zionism IS oppressed people rising up and controlling their lives in their land you and I have a different conception of "their" land, then, clearly. You believe in quasi-religious nationalist mythology that "because my ancestors lived there" it is my land. It needn't be noted that two milennia of non-Jewish settlement in Palestine voids Jews' "right" to that land, except in Romantic nationalist ideologies - which, by the way, are antithetical to the precepts of liberalism - which, if implemented, would and have resulted in an utter catastrophe and immeasurable human suffering. The Joan Peters-esque propaganda thesis that the Palestinians are all "migrants" or "nomads" is the real revisionism, and the fact that you'd even resort to such a crude argument goes to show the depths of your ignorance. The erroneous attempts to analogize the right to Arab self determination in Iran and Turkey, which is, of course, farcical, with their right to self determination in Palestine, a land in which they've lived in for centuries, again, simply demonstrates how you disassociated you are from reality. Palestine is a land in which Arabs live and have lived - and one in which they've lived for centuries. Thus, it's their land. It's not a particularly difficult concept to grasp - they lived there, and thus they have a superior claim to it than foreign European migrants, regardless of the "arguments" presented, devoid not only of moral value but of ancestral and genetic value as well. Regarding the Porajmos, that name is scarcely used. The article itself notes that "The term is used mostly by activists and is unknown to most Roma, including relatives of victims and survivors". I addressed this on your talk page, yet you seemed to have deleted it. Also, read the sources cited in the Porajmos article; most of them use the term Holocaust. Again, no one knows what the "Porajmos" is. It's an unknown term, and, the false comparisons the Greek genocide, which occurred in an entirely different context with that of the Nazis, as I noted on your talk page. The Holocaust was not a singular process directed against a particular single ethnic group, but a number of different demographics residing within Nazi-occupied Europe which did not conform to what was thought of as an ideal unit of the Volksgemeinschaft. The war itself was one of extermination - all of the humans considered untermensch or potentially subversive by the Nazi regime were liquidated. There was no "special" suffering the Jews went through. You claim that you don't judge people as "collectives", yet your repeated stress on the "Jewish"[ethnic-collective] nature of this tragic crime tells me that that's simply false; you see the world through an ethnic lens; my "people, your "people", and this genocide was only of "my" people and you're not a part of it. Quite exclusionist, is it not? Again, I addressed most of this on your talkpage, which you inexplicably deleted. Moreover, the Gypsies and the Jews were not the only victims of the Nazi holocaust. The Poles were as well, as were the Russian POWs. The first victims were the disabled people and the political dissenters. You may bring up the legal definition of genocide, but that's extraneous; WP:OR. A number of scholars, including the US Holocaust museum have have defined it to include all of the peoples, and, regardless as to whether or not racists like yourself want to deliberately exclude non-Jews, it's evidently an opinion expressed by some scholars and thus that controversy must be noted, especially when we also have a Holocaust victims article which includes them also. JDiala (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTAFORUM. Please confine yourselves to discussing ways to use information from reliable sources to improve the article. Also consider WP:TLDR(Hohum ^@) 02:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ykantor: Uniqueness - The point isn't just whether or not the Holocaust is the Jewish genocide. It's also whether or not its unique, and, of course, the Hollande issue which you seem to ignore.

• If factual quotes are to be provided from Finkelstein, then why not from Steven Katz? He provided no evidence that the Holocaust is unique. Besides, it's not necessary that every claim is necessarily elaborated. Regarding David Irving, he doesn't express his own personal opinion, but that of Raul Hilberg and a reviewer Gordon Craig.
• I responded to both points(G,F). If you're dissatisfied with my response, you need to tell me exactly what it is you're dissatisfied with.
• As Hohum noted, we must abide by WP:NOTFORUM and keep the discussion on topic [ie, stop the Israel-Palestine discussion]. JDiala (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Being a Zionist does not make me a "Jewish supremacist". It means I believe in the self-determination of the Jewish people. You should not use the English name for Israel, "Palestine", for the same reason you don't call Beijing "Peking", or Mumbai "Bombay". It's inaccurate and Anglo-centric. Arabs in the Mandate for "Palestine" considered it to be a Zionist term, and preferred calling the land "Southern Syria". You refer to the fallacy that Jews only returned to Israel after 2000 years in diaspora, this is simply not true. There has been an unabated Jewish presence in the land which only declined during the Roman and Ottoman occupations. I am not saying that all Arab Palestinians are nomadic. I'm saying that the majority of native Arab populations were nomadic, and the land-owning populations were mostly Turks, not Arabs (Turks were given preferential treatment under the Ottomans).

As for Arabs living there for hundreds of years, this is true. But long-standing presence is not the same as indigeniety—you do not earn native status simply for conquering the natives and living on their land for a few centuries. As for referring to Jews as European migrants, that's blatant revisionism. Even while in diaspora, Jews were culturally and genetically isolated and were never considered "European" in any way.

"...The erroneous attempts to analogize the right to Arab self determination in Iran and Turkey, which is, of course, farcical, with their right to self determination in Palestine, a land in which they've lived in for centuries"—that line alone is proof of your cognitive dissonance. You only think Arabs are indigenous to the region of Palestine—which they aren't—because of Soviet/PLO propaganda since 1967. The truth is Arabs are just as indigenous to "Palestine"—that is, they conquered the land via imperialism—as they are to Iran and Turkey. Or if you prefer, Persia and Troy, the Greek words for the region, since you prefer the Greek word "Palestine" for ישׁראל. Ironically, "Palestinian" used to be synonymous with "Jewish", but we'll not go there.

The Holocaust of the Jews was a result of Nazi antisemitism— a unique and particularly virulent strain of larger Nazi racism. Jews were not, as you claim, "killed in the same ways for the same reasons as everyone else". Only Jews and Romani were "enemies of the race-based state", killed for simply being, irredeemable. Death camps were reserved for Jews and Romani likewise, though some Poles and Soviet POWS were sent to labor camps. Soviet POWS were combatants, and Poles weren't actively ghettoized and murdered at an industrial scale, though they did suffer heinous war crimes. The Nazis killed different groups for very different reasons on a very different scale—deserving of different articles. Exactly the same as the different articles for the Greek, Assyrian, and Armenian Genocides.

You calling me racist is obvious projection. Having an ethno-religious affiliation does not make me a "racist". It just means Europeans like yourself haven't succeeded in colonizing my identity. My opinion is a perfectly sane one on the spectrum of the Arab/Israeli conflict. Yours is not. You justified the intentional murder of innocents because they were Jews. If there was a user justifying the intentional murder of Arabs, they would also be deserving of a ban. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:24, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to reply, but I don't want this to continue on this page. Feel free to email. --Monochrome_Monitor 03:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Finkelstein, Session 2

@JDiala:: open points:

-F Yours "a Muslim individual wanting to remove criticism of Islam on the basis that it is Islamophobic". Take for instance tthe Regensburg lecture Islamophobic incident. In my opinion it shoud not be included in an article concerning Islam, because it is a fringe theory.

-G yours: ""uniquneness" claims, which clearly trivialize the deaths of non-Jews both during the Nazi period and other genocides." The article states: "Since the 1960s, the term has come to be used by scholars and popular writers to refer specifically to the Nazi genocide of Jews.". You want to extend the term "Holocaust" and include other Nazi massacres and killing, but to limit it to the WW2 period (if I understand you). In Holocaust (disambiguation) the term is extended further and includes "Sikh Holocaust, either of two 18th century mass killings" too. Is there any limit to the extension process? if the Armenian Genocide is not included in the term Holocaust, are the Armenians victims "clearly trivialize"d?

- H Uniqueness. There is an Porajmos, the Romani genocide article. Will you accept that the Jewish genocide should have its own article too ? The name of this article is of secondary importance.

Concerning point G. If I understand you well, you claim that excluding other major disasters from the term Holocaust is trivializing the other millions of murdered people. But then You justify an exclusion of the Armenian genocide from the term Holocaust since it occurred before the 2nd world war. But when you search in google books for the terms (Armenian "holocaust") you receive a list of books that call it an Holocaust. So by a logical extension of your call, you trivialize the Armenians victim. (This is of course a logical exercise only, and I do not accuse you in anything).

-Concerning point H, what is your opinion? We can separate the Jewish Shoa article (a temporary name) from the general Holocaust article and thus avoiding endless (including some antisemitic) arguments about the "uniqueness".

-Concerning point F, you equate removal of Finkelstein antisemitic sentence from the article to "a Muslim individual wanting to remove criticism of Islam on the basis that it is Homophobic". I agree that the Regensburg lecture should not be mentioned in articles about Muhammad or Islam, and on the same token, Finkelstein pure antisemitic note that " the reason these claims persist is because claims of Holocaust uniqueness also confer "unique entitlement" to Jews, and serve as "Israel's prize alibi"" should be removed here. Ykantor (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Section Plagiarism: Climax and "Blood for Goods" - Admin Editors, consider deleting

The entire sections titled "Climax' and "Blood for Goods" are both plagiarized VERBATIM (pages 186-189) from the e-book entitled, Allah and Space by Dr Anwar El-Shahawy. See the link for yourself: https://books.google.com/books?id=nNX0158kTTcC&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=Kaltenbrunner+and+Eichmann,+under+Himmler%27s+close+supervision,+oversaw+the+climax+of+the+%27Final+Solution&source=bl&ots=iH8abVE4XZ&sig=Ee_LEynqY8wruyLjXv8HmBgRKt0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cYC5VIzWHOvNygP6v4HwDQ&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Kaltenbrunner%20and%20Eichmann%2C%20under%20Himmler's%20close%20supervision%2C%20oversaw%20the%20climax%20of%20the%20'Final%20Solution&f=false

That might explain why it has remained unsourced/uncited by the person who originally edited it for quite some time. Since I am not administratively empowered, I will leave the DELETION of these plagiarized sections to one of you so endowed. --Obenritter (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the book copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around. That section looks about the same as it did in 2008, while the ebook was published in 2010. You do not need to be an admin to edit this article, however. VQuakr (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You may be correct VQuakr - I guess I hadn't considered people plagiarizing from Wikipedia for profit. Perhaps there are legal measures available against the author if this is the case. BTW - I am fully aware of my rights to edit since I have done so extensively for Wikipedia - but thanks anyway. My impression/understanding has been that deleting large sections was reserved for admins --Obenritter (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Obenritter:, you don't have to be an admin to delete any amount from an article. As long as you explain yourself in the edit summary or talk page, otherwise your edit would be reverted as vandalism. As for the book, that has to be the strangest I have ever seen. Weirdly, on the copyright page it is listed as a work of fiction. I agree with VQuakr; it has simply copied a section of the article. There is a ban on using wikipedia content for profit (IE what he is doing by selling a book) even though it is okay to re-use for non-profit if it is attributed. Not sure who to inform about the copyright infringement though. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 23:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Gaia Octavia Agrippa (great nic by the way) - I found this book bizarre and have exposed other uses of it in Third Reich/Nazi related articles on Wikipedia. If it is indeed a copyright infringement, I would love to see the book REMOVED from Google and the internet, period. Edit summary explanations (which I normally provide in detail) will be the vehicle I employ in the future should I ever feel the need to omit a large segment. Since I am not sure that this article segment is otherwise plagiarized and this may be the inverse, I may just go line-by-line and edit/source this accordingly should the urge strike. --Obenritter (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there is nothing in the Wikipedia creative commons license in of itself which prevents properly-attributed reuse for profit. There are several publishers who regularly produce entire books copied verbatim from Wikipedia - and as long as they comply with the license terms, are legally entitled to do so, even if the morality of such is questionable. If material is copied without attribution, it is almost certainly a breach of copyright, though the only people able to take action on this are the copyright holders - which is to say the authors of the article, not the WMF, who have no rights to Wikipedia content. I suspect that in practice few contributors would wish to put the time and effort into persuing such a claim, given that the chances of receiving any material compensation would seem slim. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

What you can do is find and use better WP:RS sources which cover the same topic/section and replace the section text from said book herein with it; citing the new text and putting the new cited source book in the reference section accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Which 'cited source book' are you referring to? It has already been established that the material in the supposedly 'plagiarised' book was actually copied from Wikipedia. Nothing needs replacing as such (though more sources would be useful), and we sure as hell aren't going to put material taken from Wikipedia in breach of copyright in any reference section. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

What I mean is that the Wikipedia uncited text (which apparently is also in the dubious "book in question") can use ce work and RS citations from a recognized new "cited source book"; given the section is not cited, lends itself to be easily challenged, and replaced along the lines I stated, if one so desires. I was about to write this note in my comment above but you wrote your comment which caused an edit conflict. Kierzek (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Kierzek - it was fairly clear to me what you meant. Use the existing work as a starting point and add some substantiation from other sources in the appropriate place, expanding when and where necessary. If I get a chance (unless somebody beats me to it), I can clean this section up (by which I mean - add sources and expand if needed). --Obenritter (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Music composed in the lagers

Here are some songs composed by the prisoners in the Nazi lagers (it is for a concert that took place in Rome in 2015). Please consider it for inclusion in the external links, or suggest a more appropriate or specific article. I cannot edit this article by myself, because it is semi-protected. Thanks, --151.75.28.206 (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Modern?

The article describes the Holocaust as "a genocide, the largest in modern history".

Wouldn't it more accurate, as well as more concise, to drop the word "modern"? Has anyone alleged that there was a larger genocide in an older historical period? 75.163.190.245 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

'Some' historians? (!!!)

'An additional five million non-Jewish victims of Nazi mass murders are included by some historians...'. Just 'some' historians? Has this article been written by some kind of Holocaust denier?!--80.229.219.62 (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

No, but thank you for asking. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Good to know. Not a Holocaust denier, but an American, therefore speaking quite some distance away from the Holocaust that actually began with severely disabled people.--95.149.79.137 (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Because we are a tertiary source, the geographical location of editors is completely irrelevant. The only prerequisite to editing en.wiki is the ability to communicate in English. VQuakr (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, this is the usual argument about whether "The Holocaust" refers to the murdered Jews or the murdered everyone else as well. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

'Usual argument' here, or more broadly?--80.229.223.248 (talk) 20:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No one is denying that other people were murdered. The question concerns which deaths are included under the label "the holocaust". Paul B (talk) 21:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This reminds me of nomenclature around the universe/cosmos itself. We have two words - 'universe,' 'cosmos' - used more or less interchangeably, yet the current understanding of cosmology seems actually to require two separate uses: that which expands, and that which is expanded into. Contemporary cosmologists' tendency to deny the (theoretical, at least) necessity of the latter is a bit like the situation here, with 'Shoah' redirecting to 'Holocaust.' I must confess I was unaware of any previous 'usual argument' as to whether 'Holocaust' refers to the 6 million jews or instead the 11 million total victims. Here in the Old World, the 'Holocaust' refers to the whole episode, and the idea that it is specifically jewish, altho associated with clumsy thinking and reporting, was never quite enshrined anywhere until I read it here in the pages of this rather adventitious American virtual encyclopaedia.--89.104.33.115 (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like you learned something, then. Incidentally, while this encyclopedia's servers are housed in North America, the editors are from all over including plenty from the Old World. No serious historian disputes that millions of non-Jews were killed by the Nazis, but debate over whether the murder of non-Jewish people should be included under the term "Holocaust" is extant, at times lively, and not limited in geographic scope to North America (and certainly not just to Wikipedia!). VQuakr (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well pardon my ignorance, to date, in the matter, then. Whyever would anyone seek to deny the inclusion of all the victims in the term (not that it's just about a word, of course, when you consider the possible consequences)? My life experience, on the ground, is one of being a member of a number of the relevant groups who fell victim to the Nazis, all of which generally seem to be far too focused on present and future possible depredations to be able to compete with the jewish and other historical focus on the jewish aspect.--5.150.92.174 (talk) 12:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You would have to ask those historians. Remember that this is not a forum. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

We have not, to date, been provided with any evidence that any creditable historian would support the current article's jewish bias, something which I have reason to believe even Zionists would themselves repudiate. Please explain your last remark, bearing in mind that this this is not a tutorial in some second rate colonial university.--80.229.223.248 (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you honestly believe this has not been discussed umpteen times? Well, here's the one historian (Tim Snyder) you asked for, and I quote: "I would reserve the word 'Holocaust' for the first category, the German mass murder of the Jews." Please, have a look through the talk archives, then give it a rest. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The now deleted comment makes it clear we're being trolled here, not debated. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Because 'fascist' is an offensive term? YeOldeGentleman doesn't seem to think so. It isn't deleted from the Talk page history, either. When will you guys learn that Troll is an offensive term itself?--5.150.92.174 (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Whatever makes you think we don't know? Sometimes an offensive term is the best response to offensive behavior. Or, at least, the most satisfying. Now run along. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Ofcourse, you come to a wikipedia page to look up some stats, something doesn't look quite right with the page and you find the reason on the talk page. It's bollocks that the Holocaust would only refer to the Jewish victims that this article takes for granted. It fails to make that assumption explicit and it omits the opposing viewpoint that all of the ~11 million victims of the Holocaust were, indeed, part of the Holocaust. The "Some historians" sentence.. It's an "only on Wikipedia" one. I can find you about a million sources 11 million figure as the victim count but something tells you my googling won't sway your opinion in this matter. Tim Snyder's "I would reserve the word “Holocaust” for the first category" quote likely trumps everything I can throw at you.79.136.52.183 (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please have a look in the Porajmos, Armenian Genocide, Greek genocide, Assyrian genocide, Rwandan Genocide, and more at Category:Genocides. Should not the Jewish Genocide have an article? The article name is of secondary importance. In my opinion it may be called "Shoa" which is the Hebrew name for The Holocaust. Ykantor (talk) 19:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Then create that article. But you can't really usurp the extremely important introduction text to the Holocaust article because such an article is missing. Look at Holocaust (disambiguation): it says "The Holocaust was a genocide perpetrated by the Nazis, that killed around 11 million people, the majority of whom were Jews." 79.136.52.183 (talk) 07:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hollande

Why is that ridiculous quote by a reviled French politician still there? And in a quote box, no less! He is neither a scholar, nor a survivor. Do I have permission to remove it? --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It was discussed and eventually remained here. It seems to balance the Peter Novick citation. Ykantor (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It was discussed and retained, but you know that since you started the last discussion. Looking over that archived thread, I note that it stands out for its lack of productive discussion in favor of bluster, polemics, and WP:BLP violations. Let's not repeat that per the spirit of WP:CIVIL, ok?

I have no objection to "downgrading" both quote boxes in the "uniqueness" section to inline quotes. VQuakr (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Deaths/victims section

A couple pounts. 1) I think the deaths of the Romani need to be updated. Most modern estimates put it at half a million or more, not 90k - 200k states. Those are old numbers. For example, the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porajmos puts the estimated number of deaths at 200k MINIMUM, and an upper bound at 1.5 million.

2) I think it's a bit jarring to classify the deaths as "Jews" and "non-Jews" in the table of contents, especially because the "non-Jews" sections add up to be much longer than the Jews in terms of wordcount. So, just from an organizational viewpoint, perhaps give the bigger groups (various ethnic Slavs, Romani, etc) their own entries in the table of contents rather than just lumping them all together as "non-Jews".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.122.62 (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Update on estimated Holocaust death toll

It kind of surprises me that no discussion has begun concerning new research that not 11 million, but up to 20 million people - around 5-6 million of whom were Jews - were killed in the Holocaust. This isn't just from any sensationalist source either, it actually comes from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. The site refers to the NY times article which best explains the new findings. While I don't think at all that this tragic subject should become a competition of who suffered more, surely this does change things? It was generally thought that at least half of all holocaust victims were killed purely for being Jewish, which naturally made it most of all a Jewish loss, but seeing as now up to 14-15 million other people (again - it's no competition) were also persecuted by race, ethnicity or qualities deemed inferior, I think we need to decide on whether to include these recent but tremendous findings or not. I know we should normally decide that through the use of secondary sources, but as it is fairly recent it's obviously not in most books yet. So, community, should or shouldn't this greater definition be part of the main Holocaust article?

In my opinion it seems that while in Europe (particularly West-Europe) "Holocaust" often refers to all acts of targeted civilian genocide carried out by the Germans in WW2, the United States and particularly Israel might sooner use that term strictly for the genocide of the Jewish people. This is quite possibly a strong cultural-ecological difference. As a Dutch kid I had my grandparents tell me stories about the occupation and hunger winter, how classmates just permanently disappeared on certain days, and how frightened everyone was. Later in high school an old, crippled man one day came to tell our history class of his experience in an extermination camp; including the sight of female bodies hanging on meat hooks like animals, and the lifelong debilitating injury he earned when a guard suddenly decided to pummel him in the groin with the butt of a rifle. To those people "Holocaust" simply stands for a period of great pain and tragedy - for every victim - in that time of disaster. Anyway, I hope my fellow Wikipedians can join the discussion so we can form a consensus on this. Prinsgezinde (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, that research is much to young to be mentioned in Wikipedia. But I don't know what the exact guidelines are. There is also the question about what disappearances are "normal" and par for the course for a military occupation and which are "Holocaust-worthy". ImTheIP (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

As has been shown in the section above most scholars and historians refer to the mass-murder of the jews by the nazis when they use the word "holocaust". This does not mean that other people were not targeted and killed by the nazis but this is usually not aimed by the word holocaust. And I would avoid using short articles writen by journalists about this question for questionning a word used since decades by historians and other scholars to desuignate the mass-murder of the Jews by the nazis. --Lebob (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Lebob. I did read all the other topics on this talk page, most of which are relatively old, but none referred to this particular information. I'm not advocating a focus on victimizing non-Jewish deaths, I'm presenting a new significant factor to the discussion. As I said: judging from the headlines in all mainstream media this new victim count shifts the attention towards other groups a bit more as well. There's presently a huge gap between what the majority of non-Europeans (and young European people) hear and don't hear about the Holocaust, compared to the European majority. The fact that the name is heavily used by Israeli supporters nowadays to remind the world of the losses the Jewish nation has indisputably suffered inadvertently leaves little room for remembering the shocking number of ghettos and concentration camps that are now proved to be, far more widespread than has been perceived. My gentile great-grandfather was in two concentration camps during the war, is he not a holocaust survivor? And was Action T4 not part of the whole holocaust plan? The holocaust is arguably the most condemned act in history; no other topic is deemed as serious and atrocious as the holocaust, and few historic events get this much attention after over 70 years. Recent events have reminded us of only one side, but as a wiki we need to view this from a worldwide and neutral perspective. As per WP:Updating_information, previous discussions don't challenge the validity of my proposition; new clear evidence is available. [My prime source], the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, is perhaps the most reputable official Holocaust research authority worldwide. As Timothy D. Snyder stated,

“This magnificent collective effort, uniting the research and expertise of leading scholars from around the world, provides a fundamental new reference for the history of the Holocaust.”

Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"The headlines in all mainstream media" are not sufficient to change the way a topic is handled in wikipedia. This is particularly the case on this topic on which numerous historians and scholars have published hundred of well documents books and articles from which it apears that in its primarily meaning holocaust means for them the mass-murder of the European Jews by the nazis. And until the mainstream historians and scholars change their mind and extend the definition of holocaust to other crimes of the 3rd Reich we should keep teh current definition of the Holocaust. By the way as it seems you haven't noticed the definition of the Holocaust provided by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum I will quote it here:

The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators. Holocaust is a word of Greek origin meaning “sacrifice by fire.” The Nazis, who came to power in Germany in January 1933, believed that Germans were “racially superior” and that the Jews, deemed “inferior,” were an alien threat to the so-called German racial community

.

So, even for the USHMM the word Holocaust primarily and mainly refers to the mass-murder of the jews. --Lebob (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to Prinsgezinde for reminding us of this important study, the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, which is still a work in process. The newspaper reports you quote are apparently based on an article by Eric Lichtblau in the New York Times on 1 March 2013 which reports on the progress of the project. He quotes the lead editors of the projected 7 volume encyclopedia who "estimate that 15 million to 20 million people died or were imprisoned in the sites that they have identified". Two of the newspapers referred to below turn this estimate into "killed up to 20 million". It is clear from the interview that the surprise is not a higher death toll but the huge jump in numbers of ghettos and camps that the project has found. Firm revisions of the existing statistics clearly will have to await at least until the completion of the project. There is no doubt what the project means by the term "The Holocaust". The preface to Volume 1 Part A of the Encyclopedia states: "The Holocaust--broadly defined as the state-sponsored systematic persecution and attempted annilhilation of European jewry between 1933 and 1945..." p. xxix.Joel Mc (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

What is the term?

Related to the Holocaust, there were cases of Jews defending the guards at one or more of the camps. Do you know at which camp or camps this occurred and what the term is for this? My uncle died, but, said there was a term for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.106.101 (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Why are Non-Jewish deaths relatively ignored?

In the very beginning of this article it mentions Jewish deaths first,then other deaths like it was some sort of sidenote. The entire article shys away from Gentile deaths,and acts as if Jews deserve a higher place on the victim pedestal. It even says "are added by some historians" as if it is some sort of obscure theory that non-jews were killed in the Holocaust. I think this article needs to state the facts as they are,and not borderline deny almost half of the deaths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.177.67.108 (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The term "Holocaust" is employed by most (though not all) historians exclusively when referring to the Nazi campaign of extermination against the Jews. No one denies that the Nazis also persecuted other groups. However the Jews were their primary target and the Jewish Genocide has been generally recognized as distinct from other Nazi era atrocities. The fact that not all historians agree on this use of the term is reflected in the article by added coverage of other Nazi crimes against humanity. But the heavily weighted coverage of the Final Solution is intended to reflect the current consensus among historians. To the best of my knowledge there are separate articles dealing with all of the other Nazi persecutions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The wording of "An additional five million non-Jewish victims of Nazi mass murders are included by some historians" could certainly be improved. For one thing it is ambiguous as to whether it is saying that the 5 million are included in "the Holocaust" by some (as I presume is the case) or whether the number itself is disputed, in whole or in part, by other historians. Further, both the Holocaust template and Category:The Holocaust clearly cover all victims. I'm not sure how true it is to say that "The term "Holocaust" is employed by most (though not all) historians exclusively when referring to the Nazi campaign of extermination against the Jews. No one denies that the Nazis also persecuted other groups. However the Jews were their primary target and the Jewish Genocide has been generally recognized as distinct from other Nazi era atrocities." Johnbod (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It's true that the Jews were the main target. They suffered the most (and there is no competition) and the gas chambers were built primarily to eradicate Jews. But it's just not true that there is a consensus among historians that the word "Holocaust" should only mean the genocide of Jews. ImTheIP (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I found a news article here and it might explain why there is so much resistance to "bumping" the number from 6 to 11 million. I had no idea that the topic was that charged or that there were so many emotions involved. ImTheIP (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The Gypsies genocide has a dedicated article: Porajmos. Should not the Jewish Holocaust has a similar article? Ykantor (talk)

Probably not, or one could duplicate most of this article. Way down the text there is in fact a long set of sections on the death tolls of non-Jewish victims of several types, beginning at The_Holocaust#Non-Jewish, and no doubt some of the national articles cover this, but the upper portions of the article mostly refer only to Jews (though it is sometimes ambiguous what figures etc are being counted). At the least the lead should summarize who the 5 million gentile victims were. Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Non-Jewish "victims"

The Holocaust is exclusively a Jewish event. It was not until the 1970s that the Holocaust was broadened (mainly by a single "historian" whose name currently escapes me) to include imaginary victims such as homosexuals who were neither gassed nor sent to any of the death camps. The Gypsies were treated as refugees and were not exterminated like the Jewish people. Yes there were Gentiles in the camps and yes a handful of them died mostly due to natural causes, but their sacrifice amounts to a mere footnote when compared to the scale of the Jewish people slaughtered just because they were Jewish. It is antisemitic historical revisionism to include gentile deaths among the genocide of Jewish victims. We all know what revisionism truly means within the context of the holocaust as well. Indeed, only holocaust deniers benefit from this. If the deniers have their way, pretty soon the Holocaust will include all the victims of World War II. This CANNOT happen and we WILL NOT allow it to happen either. The Holocaust is a 100% exclusively and objectively Jewish event. Period. Full Stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.46.57.79 (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This kind of strident language is unhelpful and unlikely to be persuasive in a discussion about article content. We go where the reliable sources tell us to go. If there is reference to other people who were killed by the Nazis in connection with the term Holocaust it is because reliable sources have shown that this discussion exists. We don't censor things like that to suit anyone's agenda. On a side note, I find your very dismissive commentary about other people who were brutalized and murdered by this vicious regime to be in singularly bad form. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Once again this discussion is in danger of being derailed. The Nazis (and their allies) committed mass murder of different groups of people: Russian POWs, Ukrainians, Roma, and Serbs. I believe that these other mass murders are well covered in other WP articles. The fact is that the major historians writing in English have chosen to use the term, Holocaust, to refer to the mass murder of European Jews by the Nazis and their allies (just as the French use the term Shoah). This is a question of taxonomy, not judgement. I am afraid that the use of the term "jewish event" obscures rather than clarifies the issue. While it is not possible to count the heads of the major historians, making it difficult to say "most major historians", all one needs to do is walk through the stacks a library to see that most of the history books use the term Holocaust to refer to the mass murder of the Jews of Europe.Joel Mc (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Further up this page, we have an IP similarly making attacks because we do not mention the non-Jewish victims enough. Receipt of criticism from both sides of the issue probably is a good indicator that our article has good balance. VQuakr (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey! I'm that IP (and now I have a funny account name). It's not right of you to dismiss the problems I raised because of this guys comments (which maybe are a response to mine?). It would be nicer of you to respond to my criticism directly instead of putting me on one side and 71.46.57.79 on the other side. ImTheIP (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the term "Holocaust" wasn't even used much before the '70s. Before then, the term "Final Solution", which specifically refers to a 'solution' of the 'Jewish problem', was probably most common. It was the very adoption of the generic term Holocaust that allowed multiple groups to be included. The historian you denigrate was Elie Wiesel in his 1979 Report for the Holocaust Memorial Commission. The claim that gypsies were treated as 'refugees' is preposterous, and the notion that a mere 'handful' of non-Jews died is simply false. I agree with you about homosexuals, though the term 'imaginary victims' is rather strong. You do your case no good by such dismissive language. Paul B (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Those who wish to include Gentiles among the casualties seek to undermind and whitewash the uniqueness of this event. How can one truly learn the lesson which the Holocaust teaches? That over six million Jewish lives were exterminated while people like you turned the other cheek and allowed it to happen. Indeed, the gentile world stood by and did nothing while allowing the Jewish people to be slaughtered like pigs and gassed to death. Shall we include the millions of others whose lives ended due to Nazi atrocities? Where do you draw the line? Is everyone who died because of the Nazis now a holocaust victim? I rest my case — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.46.57.81 (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.46.57.84 (talk)

Actually I think you will find that there was some small effort made by non Jews. You might have heard of it. It was called The Second World War. Refer to the linked article in case you missed it. On a side note your commentary is straying perilously close to what I and I think most other editors would call uncivil. I would respectfully, again, ask you to moderate the tone of your comments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

We know that about 1.1 million prisoners died (or where murdered, intentionally killed, executed..) in the Auschwitz concentration camp. 90% of them where Jews which means about 110 thousand persons were not. To me it would be incredibly strange to label the 990 thousand Jews who died there as victims of the Holocaust, but the 110 thousand non-Jews who died there as not Holocaust victims. Is a Jew who survived Auschwitz a "Holocaust survivor" but a non-Jew pole who survived Auschwitz not a "Holocaust survivor"? Most sources I've read about the Holocaust does not make that distinction like Britannica: "locaust, Hebrew Shoʾah, Yiddish and Hebrew Ḥurban (“Destruction”), the systematic state-sponsored killing of six million Jewish men, women, and children and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its collaborators during World War II." ImTheIP (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here disagrees or is at odds with you on this, my friend. JpGordon may have been a bit brusk and short with you, but I think that's only because of the way you contentiously approached what most would see as a non-issue. We don't tolerate accusations or personal attacks, and I think you were straddling that line. I can't speak for him, though; I do know, from past experience, that he's an able editor and a fair administrator. It's important to note, that in the interest of NPOV, we reflect what the sources say, and some historians simply don't discuss the other victims when describing the Holocaust. Thus, the distinction is made of "some historians". As you can see, both in the article and as per the discussion is this thread, we include them, and attempt to promote a global and comprehensive understanding of the issue. The trend in modern scholarship is the tendency to include them with little to no reservation or caveat. Some may, however, still make the distinction of the primary intended victims, as is to be expected. Nothing more. It's not an attempt to whitewash anything, I assure you. Good luck in your future editing here. Remember, however, to remain civil in your interactions with other editors. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, maybe you have me confused with the 80.x.x.x ip? I was only the 79.x.x.x one (very confusing!) and apologise if I came across as accusative. Some historians take the view that the Holocaust was the culmination of 200 years of European Antisemitism and in that view it makes sense to describe the Holocaust as a Jewish-only event. But of the books about the Holocaust I've read, they focuses more on the "mechanics" of the Holocaust. Yes, the idea was to purge Europe from Jews but as it was carried out a lot of other victims also perished bringing the count up to 11 million. ImTheIP (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

As I look around the books in my study, I come up with the following writers: Saul Friedlander, Peter Longerich, Michael Marrus, Robert Paxton, Christopher Browning, Deborah Lipstadt, Leni Yahil, Walter Laqueur, Arthur D. Morse, Nora Levin, Susan Zuccotti, Alexander Donat, David S. Wyman, Martin Gilbert, Yehuda Bauer, Timothy Snyder, Tony Judt, Caroline Moorehead, Ian Kershaw, and Raul Hilberg. By anybody's measure, an honor roll of the major historians of modern European history. Everyone of them uses the term "The Holocaust" to distinguish the Nazi mass murder of European Jews from other Nazi mass murders. Most of them also have studied the other Nazi mass murders. The term is solely a classification term and none of those writers to the best of my knowledge ignore or even downplay the other mass murders. The publication dates of these studies range from 1967 (Arthur Morse) to 2013 (Susan Zuccotti). Joel Mc (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps then we should add language making it clear that the the argument for a more inclusive use of the term "Holocaust" is a decidedly minority position. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll gladly admit I'm wrong but name dropping a bunch of historians isn't convincing. Can you show me modern works, written in the 1990:s or later (the Eastern European archives were opened), preferably by non-Israeli authors (who for obv reasons focuses on the Jewish people's sufferings) which do not mention non-Jewish victims when describing the history of the Holocaust? I believe you are incorrect about Suscan Zuccotti -- she mentions massacres on non-Jews and files those events under "the Holocaust" classification. ImTheIP (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

By listing the major historians of Nazi Germany, all of whom define The Holocaust as the mass murder of European Jews by the Nazis, I meant to show that this is the predominant view in English. I am sorry if this is not convincing, but I have read and consulted almost all of the books listed. This is about definition, not whether they also wrote about other Nazi mass murders, which of course most of them did. I don't know where you found that Susan Zuccotti "files" massacres of non-Jews under the Holocaust. You only have to open her book on Vichy France, let alone read it--which I have done--to see that she uses the definition of The Holocaust solely for the mass murder of the Jews. The historians on the list above, most of whom have written since 1990, come from varied national backgrounds, and are respected by the profession. It is not really acceptable to imply that their nationality somehow affected how they define the Holocaust.Joel Mc (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Look, what you are doing is once again referencing something I can't check. In effect you are referencing yourself as the authority. You have to do better than to list a bunch of authors and ask me to read all their books to verify that you are right. In Susan Zuccotti's book The Italians and the Holocaust she meticulously details the plight of the non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust in Italy. p. 181: "Non-Jewish political prisoners also suffered at Fossoli, particularily after the Germany takeover. ... [ several paragraphs of what happened to the non-Jews"

Now I've done you the courtesy of actually digging up a quote supporting what I said (that Susan Zuccotti's doesn't think the Holocaust was an exclusively Jewish event). Could you please do me the same favour? Also, It is not unacceptable to imply that someone whose mother tongue is Hebrew would use a different definition of the Holocaust word than the English one. ImTheIP (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

And even if you would be right about "most historians" (short of mailing those of them who are alive and asking, I have a hard time figuring out how to determine how they define "Holocaust"), how historians define words shouldn't beat common parlance. For example there are many Jehova's witnesses calling themselves Holocaust survivors and giving speeches. I have never heard of anyone challenging their label, not even "well, technically the Holocaust only affected Jews." That's why the "some historians..." sentence doesn't make any sense to me and not to a lot of ip-addresses either who seem to have complained on this talk page. ImTheIP (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry that you are unable to consult any of the historians that I have listed from my book shelves, I believe that many of them can be found public libraries as well as on the internet. I have linked them to the articles about them in Wikipedia. I am afraid that I have neither the time nor inclination to hunt up page numbers, so I am afraid that you will have to treat my edit as an informed, good faith edit. If you read any of Susan Zuccotti's books on Vichy France, Italy or her latest "Père Marie-Benoît and Jewish Rescue", you will discover that she clearly uses the proper noun, The Holocaust, to refer to the mass murder of the Jews even as she mentions other victims of the Nazis. I suppose if you have a reliable source re: "common parlance" it might be acceptable, but an encyclopedia should emphasize expert opinions. Joel Mc (talk) 08:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between Jews and Gypsies, and between Jehova's witnesses. The murder of Jews and Gypsies was systematic and unavoidable, since they were allegedly an inferior race, while Jehova's witnesses could abandon their belief and stay alive. Ykantor (talk) 10:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Kacser reversion

Hi. I've reverted some edits by Kacser (not the ones about the Spanish Republicans, just the ones dealing with the main content of the article) which I believe to be inappropriate for the article. While I don't intend to whitewash any of the events of the Holocaust, the use of phrases such as "more properly characterized as murders" and the underlining of "extinction" read more as a personal condemnation of the events of the Holocaust than an encylopedia article, and emphasize nothing that hadn't already been explained in the article. 0xF8E8 (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your revision. The deleted material didn't add any new information to the article and seemed to just repeat the overriding theme of "murder", which as you point out, is already covered in the article. Coinmanj (talk) 04:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Bug?

I keep receiving notifications that Adolf Hitler's bodyguard, an article I recently created, is linked from this page, but it's not? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 00:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Lebensunwertes Leben meaning

This article says that that term referred to victims of the Holocaust. But I looked it up just now in google books, it says in Dictionary of Genocide by Paul R. Bartrop and Samuel Totten "Life Unworthy of Life (German Lebensunwertes Leben) German Nazi term for those afflicted with hereditary illnesses, including the mentally ill, who were perceived as a political and economic burden to German society and worthy of euthanasia." I think that the euthanasia program was the context in which that term was used, not the extermination of European Jews. I don't want to change it myself though so I thought I might hear other viewpoints. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC) Bishonen and Maunus insinuated that I was a neo-Nazi, which I'm not. So I want to clarify, when I'm making this point, I'm not arguing the Holocaust did not take place, I'm saying that the sources I've looked at indicate that this term was not in reference to that event. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics edited by Ezekiel J. Emanuel, Christine C. Grady, Robert A. Crouch, Reidar K. Lie, Franklin G. Miller, David D. Wendler Of course, euthanasia was a euphemism. The killings did not correspond to conventional notions of "releasing" an individual who so wishes from the pain and suffering of a terminable and incurable illness. Rather, the Nazi euthanasia program targeted "worthless lives"(Lebensunwertes Leben) "undesirables" such as the infirm, non-Aryans, or adolescents who challenged authority." When Doctors Kill: Who, Why, and How By Joshua A. Perper, Stephen J. Cina "By late 1938, only months before the preparations for war accelerated, the Nazi regime authorized mercy killings of babies born deformed or with brain damage. A Reich Committee for the Scientific Registration of Serious Hereditary and Congenital Diseases was made responsible for monitoring the registration of all children under 3 years of age with any suspected serious hereditary diseases...The physicians staffing the euthanasia commission made their determination of Lebensunwertes Leben (life unworthy of life)". So I believe that term was in reference to Hitler's murders in the euthanasia program, not to the Holocaust.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I have moved the sentence to a more appropriate section and have given it a reference. I am sure that it can be improved upon. Joel Mc (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Does the killing of mentally disabled people part even belong in this article? The traditional definition of the Holocaust is the mass murder/extermination of Europe's Jews. The other people who were murdered by the Nazis, such as Gypsies, Bolsheviks, Freemasons, homosexuals, and the mentally disabled, are usually considered a separate issue from the Holocaust.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Your implication that they don't belong is right in my view. However, during the last 8 years that I have been editing this article, this has been a contentious issue. There have been at least two points of view: 1)there are those, like myself, who believe that this is a definitional issue and that an encylopedia entry should reflect what experts have written on the issue. 2) others have reacted that not to include non-Jewish victims in the definition somehow devalues their suffering even though there are separate articles about the mass murders by the Nazis of most of other groups. Earlier attempts to focus on the widely accepted definition (see my comments above) have stirred up strong reactions from those opposed. A wikipedia "Super Editor" abandoned her attempt to bring up the article to a "Good Article" status because of the hostile reaction by those opposed to the definitional approach. So I suppose that it will remain as the mess that it is. Joel Mc (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Paul, where are you from? No matter how many scientific journals are released, some stuff stays in tradition. It will be told by teachers, survivors, and grandparents, meaning it will inevitable keep a foothold. "Holocaust" became a term for many horrible things. That the loss of Jews was proportionally large does not mean only they were mourned, though this might be advocated in areas that weren't occupied. I'm sure Poland considers its 3 million non-Jews who went on the same trains as Jews just as much victims of the Holocaust; the systematic cleansing in the name of extreme eugenics. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Introduction

Shall we mention that the 6 million number is roughly 7% of the total estimated WW2 casualties? While killing civilians has always been taboo, I hardly see how we should put less weight on people who went to die for their country than on people who hid. It seems some Americans, who lost a few hundred thousand, learn at school that few died beyond the victims of the holocaust. And since a certain few intend to keep the page Heidenchristenfrei this would help a lot. 8 articles about this subject already exist or so, but none mention this. 77.165.250.227 (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

'Heidenchristenfrei'? Exactly what do you mean by that? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 13:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Heathen Christians 77.165.250.227 (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Well that doesn't help much. What are you trying to say? Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

He means free of non-Jews, a pun on the Nazi phrase Judenfrei. Paul B (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Ahh of course. OK, anyway, I don't see how mentioning the percentage adds anything, unless RSs do it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

———————— "The full extent of his work will never be known because the truckload of records he sent to Dr. Otmar von Verschuer at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute was destroyed by von Verschuer.[32] Subjects who survived Mengele's experiments were almost always killed and dissected shortly afterwards."

Why were they destroyed and how were they destroyed?--XELO 19:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xelophate (talk • contribs)