Jump to content

Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

"Murder" as terminology

Can somebody explain why the word "murder" is used repeatedly throughout the article? Nevermind, I know exactly why. But it shouldn't be. If you look at articles about the killing fields of Cambodia or even the rape and destruction of eastern Europe by the Red Army, the word murder scarcely if ever appears.

I suggest that the term 'murder' be replaced with a less POV word like killing.

To be honest this article is so hopelessly POV I suggest it be nuked and we start over. 71.169.183.40 (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You would need to explain why you thought the article was "hopelessly POV". The the other articles you mention might not be in compliance with WP:EUPHEMISM; that is no reason to soften this article. VQuakr (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Here's a guess, because people were murdered. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems obvious to me that the pro-Jewish lobby has ensured that emotional and potentially untrue language (murder is a precise legal term) is used for the Jewish tragedy. What about the Rwandans, or the Ukrainians, or the Chinese? Their lobby is not as powerful, they do not exploit their sufferings into the present day for political gain. This entire article is unfit for consumption, it is pure propaganda. I am no "Holocaust Denier", I just think an encyclopedia as widely read as Wikipedia should be impartial and avoid pandering to any particular group. 71.169.183.40 (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the unreferenced statement is obvious to some, but it is not true. To take just one example: Timothy Snyder, Professor of History at Yale writes as follows "The term Holocaust was introduced after the war and, by the 1990s, was generally (although by no means always) understood to mean the mass murder of the Jews by the Germans. In this book the term Holocaust signifies the final version of the Final Solution, the German policy to eliminate the Jews of Europe by murdering them. (Snyder, Timothy (2010-10-12). Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (Kindle Locations 7591-7594). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.)Joel Mc (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with VQuakr that the statement is nonsense, but but I reverted as there are people out there who believe that nonsense which is why I added my statement with the reference to Snyder. There are of course many other examples that could be given. Joel Mc (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The definition of murder (Mord) in Germany during WW2 is defined by § 211 StGB in the criminal code. Up to 1941, it required "wilfully" and "deliberately" killing a person. The code was changed in 1941 to include specific motives. One of the subsections is "[wer tötet] heimtückisch oder grausam oder mit gemeingefährlichen Mitteln", or "[whoever kills] insidiously or cruelly or with dangerous means." The code was not changed after 1945. Roches (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
There is no 'pro-Jewish lobby' controlling Wikipedia articles. You're free to change it yourself if you care enough, and can follow the guidelines to a point that wouln't get your ideas tossed by dispute moderators. 'Murder' is not an emotional term, its a fact. If this article were speaking about deaths between willing combatants, it might be considered POV to use the word murder. But deliberately murdering unwilling civilian populations is murder. This article does not only deal with Jewish deaths, but also that of the Roma, Jehovah's Witnesses, Homosexuals, Catholics, Slavs, et alia. You seem to be the one making distinctions about Jews, User @ 71.169.183.40. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans - Genocide

I think this should be in this as it lengthens the timescale of the events. It brings up the consequences of the holocaust in which around 3 million germans died due to Allied Forces genocide.

I think it should be brief so the article does not change direction.--XELO 00:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xelophate (talk • contribs)

Can you be more specific as to what content you propose adding? VQuakr (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Why shouldn't the article change direction? Does the holo cost this much to you? 213.235.6.109 (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Then take it to Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50) talk page and be offensive there. This article is about the Holocaust (note the capital H). Irondome (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The Holocaust refers to civilians killed by execution or neglect by deliberate order or construction of the Axis regime in Europe. The term itself arguably only refers to Jews, though I don't subscribe to that notion. It does not refer to similar actions by Stalin, Mao, or Imperial Japan occurring at or about the same time. It does not refer to the Allied or Axis bombing of civilian targets in WWII, either. German deaths by American neglect after the war is not related to the holocaust. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Categorizing Holocaust Victims

I made some changes in the beginning paragraphs of the article. I was taken aback at how the Jewish casualties were prioritized and set above the others, so I decided to equalize it by lumping them together with the other murdered victims. I anticipate that this will catch quite a bit of flak, so let's try to keep it civil and debate here. Lord of Mirkwood (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, Irondome was quick to revert it. It probably took longer for you to make the edits than for him to undo it; a good 8 minutes. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, Bataaf van Oranje. The subsequent discussion was continued on my talk page, and was resolved in a satisfactory manner over a week ago. for your convenience, I reproduce the subsequent discussion below. Regards, Irondome (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Holocaust Article[edit] Hi Irondome,

You mentioned that the Holocaust article was about the "Jewish Holocaust." However, in the first paragraph of the article, it says that some historians use a definition including the five million non-Jews. Don't worry, I'm not going to revert your revert - don't want an edit war! - but I just wanted to talk it out and reach consensus here. If you'd prefer to talk somewhere else, I set up a section on the relevant article's talk page. I think it's more efficient and better conveys the information if the different target groups are lumped together. After all, should we also provide statistics (e.g. what percentage of the group was killed, how many children of each group were killed) for Roma, Catholics, mentally ill, Soviet POWs, etc.?

Thank you for reading. Lord of Mirkwood (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) It would better if the matter was discussed on the Holocaust talk page. The archives have several threads relating to this issue. many editors (like me) un-watched the article because of the constant drama. My view (which you will see if you read the threads) is that "The Holocaust" refers to the Jews. The Roma have their own term, and some of the others have advocates that want to associate the losses of "their" people with the genocide of the Jews with a range of motives. I believe the academic consensus is that they should be kept separate, but acknowledge that there is a vocal minority who disagree. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) Welcome LoM. I appreciate your courteous and measured posting. Please note that the operative word is some, in the section in the lede which mentions "some historians.." This indicates that their positions does not reflect the majority current historical consensus among current research, and I fear your edit would fall under WP:UNDUE in the sense of making such a significant edit. The Holocaust is a vastly complex subject as we are all aware, but it is generally accepted that the primary targets of the event were the Jewish people, in line with the racial obsessions and paranoid projecting of the Nazi phenomenon. I believe the plight of the other groups affected is adequately covered by the links which your edit removed. The line of argumentation of adding all the afflicted groups risks confusing some core issues, the primary one being that the Holocaust was a consequence of an imagined racial war between "Aryans" and the Jewish people. This is a critical point. As has been said by Richard Grunberger, the centrality of the Jewish "threat" to Nazi theory was as critical to it's ideology as was class to Marxist doctrine. I would argue that the current versions should stand for these reasons. Regards, Simon. Irondome (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. I just looked at the links which suffered as collateral damage from my edit and it looks as though they cover the topic well. Lord of Mirkwood (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I think this article is really dodgy in the way it separates victims. NJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.84.2 (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Murder - Killing

Murder - Killing 

"the term 'murder' be replaced with a less POV word like killing."

The German Government admitted to the murder of Jews and other Victims during the Nazi Era. They have erected monuments to raise awareness. [1]

  1. ^ http://www.stiftung-denkmal.de/en/memorials/the-memorial-to-the-murdered-jews-of-europe.html

Out of respect to all victims of the Holocaust the term "killing" should not be used! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengt Hennig (talk • contribs) 03:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Why are you quoting a months-old comment by an IP? The existing lede already refers to genocide, and to mass murder. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The reversion of your edits has more to do with the change in the number. The 6 million vs 11 million is discussed in detail right there in the lede, and "murdered" is also used. We use "killed" in addition to "murdered" simply to avoid repetition of words, its just good writing practice. The article doesn't mince words over the number of victims or the description of their deaths. Acroterion (talk) 03:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


Reply

Killing is defined as the death of a living thing caused by another. Murder describes a deliberate and premeditated killing. I find it is important to emphasise this in the introduction
I would also like to change "Some historians use a definition of the Holocaust that includes the additional five million non-Jewish victims of Nazi". This wording is very objectifying and does not honour the gravity of events. I think this sentence should be changed. The focus on Historians should be moved out of the introduction. It should simply state that some people regard the Holocaust as the murder of 11 million people by the Nazis.
Thanks to Acroterion and AndyTheGrump for keeping a watchful eye on the article! Bengt Hennig (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Since historians are what wikipedia tends to use as reliable sources for historical articles, your suggestion doesn't make much sense to me. I also don't see how plain, factual wording either honours or dishonours the "gravity of events". (Hohum @) 16:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


I agree that it is essential to uphold the factuality of the article. However, I find the wording to be depreciating. It seems that five million murdered humans are written off as "the additional five-million". I think it would be fitting to simply substitute: (1) "Some historians use a definition..." with "Some people regard the Holocaust as the murder of 11 million people by including an additional five million non-Jewish victims." Would this change be reasonable? Bengt Hennig (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I don’t see that the factual statement: "Some historians use a definition…” is any sense “depreciating” the non-Jewish victims of Nazi mass murders. The next para provides WP links to articles on each of the major groups of non-Jewish victims. Even though the number of “some historians" is rather small compared to the vast majority of historians writing on the period in English, the sentence was put in after some discussion because of the Niewyk et.al. reference. Furthermore, while there is a reference for “some historians”, “some people” seems to me to be un-referenceable weasel words. I would not agree to make such a change. Joel Mc (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia stands as an Encyclopedia for the people by the people. It aspires to be accurate and truthful. However it is by no means a historical book. For that, any interested party may look up the sources attached to each article. I think the editors should take a step back and evaluate if fixating on complexities (right at the start) is the best way to convey knowledge!
These are my views: This introduction to a comprehensive article (where any disputes are by all means explained later on) should have clear, easy to understand content which respects; the World is inhabited by People and not Historians. The detailed argumentation needs to be left to professionals, but this can be moved away from the preamble. Bengt Hennig (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I really can't see what it is that you have issues with. The lede is "accurate and truthful". It isn't difficult to understand. It makes clear what the topic of the article is. It makes clear that the Nazis engaged in mass murder. It gives numbers for such murders. It also makes clear that there are differences of opinion in academia (as elsewhere) over which of the victims should be specifically included in the term 'Holocaust'. As such, it performs the role expected of an article lede - to summarise the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Development and Execution > Origins

The first paragraph in this section reads:

"Yehuda Bauer and Lucy Dawidowicz maintained that from the Middle Ages onward, German society and culture were suffused with antisemitism, and that there was a direct ideological link from medieval pogroms to the Nazi death camps.[35]"

I have two comments:

1) This passage seems unduly one-sided. Antisemitism is by no means a particularly German phenomenon, but rather part of a broader Christian tradition (witness Spanish expulsion of Jews after the Reconquista, French antisemitism in Dreyfus affair, Norwegian closure of borders to Jews until 1851 etc. etc.).

2) The references adduced seem random. Why are these two authors in particular singled out here? I do not have access to the Bauer text, but I have consulted Dawidowicz. In the referenced passage she says nothing about the Middle Ages (nor about any "direct ideological link from medieval pogroms to the Nazi death camps"), but gives a brief (<1 page) discussion of Martin Luther's views and compares them to Hitler's.

In my opinion the paragraph should be rewritten as an ultra-short outline of Christian/European antisemitism, perhaps with a reference or two to authors that have given extensive and in-depth treatment of the history of this theme. Since I am not a specialist, I cannot with confidence suggest such a text myself. Filursiax (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


—I disagree that the article is unbalanced this way. By and large, it is not. The article correctly points out that the Nazi genocide of the Jews was primarily a racist one, not a Christian one, although Christian Anti-Judaism made it harder for Christians to systematically oppose Nazi Anti-Semitism early on, when it could have been--perhaps--more effectively opposed. Anyway many Christians were also subject to victimization in the Holocaust in the broader sense of the term--the sense which this article adopts for the most part. However, I agree with Filursiax that the sources chosen on the subject are rather arbitrary and perhaps not well used. For instance, if one wants to look at the ways Nazi ideology, including Nazi Anti-Semitism, drew in Christian elements that existed in German culture, the source to use is Richard Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, e.g. pp. 261-263, where he argues that the Christians most co-opted by Nazism ideologically, including in their hostility to the Jews, were the kind of nationalist Protestants known as "Positive Christians." Including something about this would counterbalance the quite debatable implication of Mommsen that Catholics were more prone to accept Nazi claims about the Jews. 75.114.193.123 (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Dracontius

I don't have access to either source, so I can not comment on their validity. However, if they do say what was cited, can we remove it simply because we don't like the tone? It isn't a biased statement, but a proposed statement of fact. If the sources are not valid, the statement should be removed for that reason, but if it sourced correctly, it should stay. Goalie1998 (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

- Dracontius, my remarks did not concern the article as a whole, only the quoted passage from the first paragraph in this section, which claims that "from the Middle Ages onward, German society and culture were suffused with antisemitism," and that "there was a direct ideological link from medieval pogroms to the Nazi death camps" (my underlinings). Aside from the fact that Dawidowicz makes no such claims, my main objection was that the passage insinuates (cf. the underlined superlatives) that Nazi anti-semitism sprang from uniquely German roots, while in fact anti-semitism is a European phenomenon, with roots that go back through the Middle Ages to the split between Christianity and Judaism in the 1st century AD. Placing the blame so squarely on German shoulders is not only unreasonable, but historically incorrect. I can find reputable sources who support this view, but I don't have time to do any massive bibliographical sleuthing. (Full disclosure: I am myself neither Jewish nor German.)

- Goalie1998, Dawidowicz is definitely incorrectly quoted here. I have not read Bauer, but even if he does propose a fact, I think he should not be included. The trouble with the passage is not that it speaks of a German tradition of anti-semitism, but that it does not even mention that this German tradition was embedded in a wider European tradition. For the reader it must seem that historically, the German tradition (since the Middle Ages!) was in some way a uniquely vicious form of anti-semitism... Of course it would be possible to check the Bauer reference, find other references that support other notable historians' points of view on the subject, and go into the whole argument broadly, but it seems to me that this (at least) would mean that the paragraph would have to be expanded to whole new section. I suggest, instead, that we delete the passage for now, and if necessary return to it later, to give it a broader and more balanced treatment. Filursiax (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

A brief reply—I am far from my libes. A quick look at the references is that they are wrong. While both report that German religious anti-semitism in the Middle Ages provided fertile ground for the virulent modern German variety culminating in the Nazi form. Dawidowicz writes: “modern German anti-Semitism had more recent roots than Luther and grew out of a different soil…” Bauer in his review of Goldhagen in Rethinking the Holocaust finds the argument that "Germans killed the Jews…because they had wanted to since the Middle Ages” to be “mindless simplicity.” I would agree to deleting the passage. It might be good to add something about the Europe-wide religious anti-semitism, particularly of the Roman Catholic church, which Luther built upon. This is particularly relevant to Germany as Luther wrote his pamphlet in the vernacular.Joel Mc (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2015

You should change it because, part of the experiment doesn't have enough information. I got exclusive information from my Jewish parents. From morphine to death, they didnt use morphine, in fact they killed them. 123.211.206.82 (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Not sure what you want changed. Also, please note that your parents are not considered reliable sources unless they also happen to be noted experts in this area. Cannolis (talk) 09:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Title

Why isn't the lemma simply "Holocaust" instead of "The Holocaust"?--Hubon (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, see [1]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello and thanks! But I don't get it: the discussion is about moving "The Holocaust" to "Holocaust", isn't it? That's what I mean. So why was it moved back again (if moved at all)???--Hubon (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
In the context of this article, "Holocaust" is a proper noun. The article “the” is generally used with plural proper nouns, i.e. the Alps, however one exception is when it is used with a singular proper noun (name) of a historical event, thus the Holocaust.Joel Mc (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so is that why the consensus of the linked discussion was not realized? I mean, they all supported the move to "Holocaust" - without the definite article...--Hubon (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
But if you read below that it was only four people, and it was reversed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see that the section below also belonged to the relevant discussion.--Hubon (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't take a broad enough view of the origins of the Holocaust

The 'origins' section of this article, though detailed and straight forward, focuses too much on the eugenic motivations of the genocide and largely fails to mention major socio-political factors which were also integral to the reasoning of the major perpetrators, for instance the stab in the back myth and the concept of Jewish Bolshevism. Other genocide articles such as that for the Armenian and Rwandan genocides have 'background' sections which establish a time line of sorts of increasing tension and racism, often making reference to several specific events. A suggestion for how this could look in this article is 'antisemitism in Europe' (which may mention eugenics and the volkisch movement) then 'world war 1' (which could make reference to the notorious german military 'account on Jews') then 'stab in the back myth and German Revolution' (both important in the development of the 'jewish Bolshevism' canard) then 'rise of the nazi party' before continuing the article as it is. These are simply suggestions, and I don't expect everyone or indeed anyone to take them up. However, I just think there should be some major restructuring of this section. Regards Aardwolf A380 (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Questions

How is the German for an obscure term like Trawniki of any use to anyone? The article is bloated enough as it is, let alone with pointless German translations like Trawnikimänner in it. And why is Hollande's opinion still in this article? His views should be on his own page, not cluttering up this one. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Jewish resistance section paraphrasing the views of a death camp commander

The section on Jewish resistance provides the views of SS officer and death camp commander Franz Stangl. The excerpt reads "Franz Stangl, who had commanded two death camps, was asked in a West German prison about his reaction to the Jewish victims. He said that only recently he had read a book about lemmings. It reminded him of Treblinka." Wouldn't it be more desirable for Wikipedia to have a more neutral and impartial viewpoint on the behaviour of the Jewish victims than the viewpoint of a death camp commander? I think this last section, with its inflammatory reference to "lemmings" (a reference, it would appear, to the false claim that lemmings commit mass suicide) could be removed from the section of quotations.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 02:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

If the quote was good enough for Raul Hilberg, I'm quite sure it's good enough for Wikipedia. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Origin of the word genocide.

In the "Uniqueness" section, it says "The term genocide was coined as a crime against humanity in 1943 by Polish Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin to describe the systematic extermination of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire at the start of the 20th century[446][447] in what would become known as the Armenian Genocide.[448][449][450] Lemkin based the definition of genocide on the Armenian genocide.[451][452][453]". But the sources being cited don't exactly back this up. In fact, in some ways they are explicitly contradictory of this. It seems that the word Genocide was actually coined to describe the actions of the Nazis. "In 1944, Lemkin wrote a book about the Nazis. In it, he combined the Greek "genos" for race with the Latin "-cide" for killing: Genocide. Lemkin had named the crime he spent a lifetime trying to prevent.... Taking hundreds of pages of Nazi laws and decrees, Lemkin wrote a comprehensive book that laid bare the Nazis' brutal plans. And he invented a word for the crime the Nazis were committing. Genocide."(from Citation 451). It seems that, while coining the term to describe the actions of the Nazi party, he perhaps used the Armenian Genocide as an example of the type of behavior he was talking about, as evidenced by "...when Raphael Lemkin coined the word genocide in 1944 he cited the 1915 annihilation of Armenians as a seminal example of genocide" (Auron) but this doesn't actually say that the word was coined to describe said annihilation of Armenians, but rather that it was another example of the word being coined in reference to something else (Note the use of "a seminal example" rather than "the seminal example". Either way, given the specificity of the wording in the sources, to say that the term was coined specifically to describe the Armenian Genocide would, I believe, be WP:SYNTH since at least one of the sources being cited explicitly states that it was coined to describe the actions of the Nazis, and none of them, as far as I can tell, specifically say it was coined to describe the Armenian genocide. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Holocaustic?

The Holocaustic? Is that even a word? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:8C00:EE:5D18:D9F2:629B:2D69 (talk) 05:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

No, why? --jpgordon::==( o ) 19:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

It is on the search bar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:8C00:EE:5D18:D9F2:629B:2D69 (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Perpetrators

The second paragraph states: "Between 100,000 and 500,000 people were direct participants in the planning and execution of the Holocaust.” Reference is to: Radcliff, Pamela. "Interpreting the 20th Century: The Struggle Over Democracy" (PDF). Chantilly, Virginia: The Great Courses. pp. 104–107. This turns out be be from a course outline without any other reference.

Perhaps the latest reference to the number of perpetrators gives an estimate of "200,000 Holocaust perpetrators” (reported in Dan Stone p. 109) [1]

If there is no opposition, I propose to change the figures and reference in the next couple of days. Joel Mc (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Stone, Dan (2011). Histories of the Holocaust. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-956679-2.

"54% Protestant, 40% Catholic, 3.5% Deists... 1.5% irreligious"

Protestants and Catholics are Christians. Huritisho 18:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This data about German, Not about Nazis. I don't think that all German been part of Holocaust. The user is been pushing propaganda here as cliaming Nazi is a Christian terrorism. What nazi done was not in name of Christianity, The Category:Persecution by Christians it's include only vicitoms who killed by christians in the name of Christianity. Not for other purpose .--Jobas (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Jobas: "We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity... in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people." - Adolf Hitler. Knowledge Battle 18:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Who do you think the Nazis were? Americans? Jews? Chinese? Knowledge Battle 18:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Nazis could be Lutherans, Calvinists, Catholics or atheists. Most importantly, it violates synthesis to combine to conclude they are Christian terrorists - that conclusion must be found in sources. Please do not revert back until you have consensus
it's been revort your edit here too [2].--Jobas (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Jobas: Don't you think that a small percentage of the Islamic terrorists are perhaps nonbelievers, but don't tell the people around them? Statistically, this is highly probable. However, considering what's driving them - Islamic terrorism - we call it "persecution by Muslims". Similarly, "We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity" means that Christians were running the show. They were doing the persecuting. Atheists had no voice in Nazi Germany. If they did, they probably would have said, "Ok, we understand that Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, was vehemently anti-Semetic, but... why should we hate Jews? As Atheists, we have no reason to hate Jews." Probably would have said that. But Christians don't listen to the rational reason of Atheists, because "the fool says in his heart, 'there is no god'." Christians wouldn't have listened to the "don't hate" logic in Nazi German, even if Atheists did have a voice. Knowledge Battle 18:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Agian When Nazi killed the different ethnic groups and the Jewish in particolar they did not killed in name of Jesus or Christianity, and they did not use the bible to justify their actions. It's your perosnal opinion that Nazi are Christian terrorism group.--Jobas (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2015

Please replace all uses of archaic and inappropriate English colloquial expression "whilst" with "while.

168.103.251.57 (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

indeed, "while" seems better than "whilst". I'll change that. If anyone disagrees, revert me and come here discuss Huritisho 23:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Wait – I just searched the article and the world "whilst" isn't used. Case closed. Huritisho 00:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Whilst is in modern usage, but it's a matter of which variant of English the article is using. Is the article consistently using American English elsewhere? If not, there's no need to change this. —C.Fred (talk) 00:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable and imprecise refs in first para

The French reference is not a reliable source and out of date. Hodapp is not a reliable source re: Holocaust (perhaps it is ok for masonic issues). I can find no mention of the 17 million figure in Hilberg or Gilbert. Difficult to check Gutmann without any page numbers. On the whole such references are not very useful without page numbers.Joel Mc (talk) 11:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2015

Since the majority of the victims of the Holocaust were Yiddish speakers, the Yiddish name should be included alongside the English and Hebrew ones. This name is "חורבן" (Khurbn), or 'ruination'. See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Holocaust for citation.

The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"),[2] also known as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "the catastrophe"), or the Khurbn (Yiddish: חורבן, "the ruination").

73.153.43.128 (talk) 03:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done While WP:ALTNAME does include "significant names in other languages", I this this addition to the first sentence would be of dubious value to our readers (who by definition read English). Feel free to start a discussion here; if there is consensus to include then it can be added. VQuakr (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation 418 - Error

Xx236 (talk) 06:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Corrected (I hope) Joel Mc (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning

Should be metioned.Xx236 (talk) 07:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

An article on a book on the Holocaust should link here; the inverse is not necessarily true. VQuakr (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
The book should be mentioned in the article, both listed and referenced.Xx236 (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
It just came out, we'll have to wait and see if it is seen as a useful book by historians. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Even if not useful but controversial only, should be mentioned.
There exist already plenty of reviews.
BTW - Daniel Goldhagen is quoted only as a Soviet POW's expert (the link is dead). He has published several texts about the Holocaust, not mentioned here. Xx236 (talk) 07:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
You haven't given any reason for it to be included. There is not and will not be an exhaustive list of every work about the Holocaust in this article. VQuakr (talk) 07:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The POW link is dead. I'm not sure if Goldhagen is an expert is Soviet POWs, so a better and active reference is needed.
Goldhagen was quite popular during a certain period, see Hitler's Willing Executioners, now he is present in See also, Perpetrators and collaborators in Responsibility for the Holocaust.
The page informs Hitler states in Mein Kampf that he first became an anti-Semite in Vienna but doesn't inform about Vienna anti-Semitism of that time.Xx236 (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

concerns, who made with

please translate this to english

BMW - Quandt und die Göbbels Connection Opel General Motors - David James Mooney , Vergasungs-Lkw Opel Blitz Volkswagen - Gründung durch Adolf Hitler, vollständige Gründung und Kontrolle des Konzerns unter Adolf Hitler Deutsche Bahn speditions-firma, kz deportationen Siemens zug-bau-konzern, elektrische züge seit 1879, Betreiber des KZ Auschwitz-Aussenlager-Bobrek, strom-zaun von Auschwitz BASF, Bayer, I.G. Farben - chemie-konzern, arznei-mittel-konzern, zyklon b hersteller, präparat be1039(mengele experimente) Flick - Der Flick-Konzern ist an der Errichtung des KZ Auschwitz beteiligt gewesen ... Thyssen-Krupp - muss ich recherchieren ... Dr. Oetker - Gründer sind NSDAP Mitglieder Messerschmidt GmbH - wurde von Bölkow, später Airbus aufgekauft ... Nasa - Raumfahrt-Konzern , Wernher von Braun, V2 Rakete Daimler Adidas Puma - gegründet bei der olympiade 1936 von adolf dassler und rudolf dassler, betreibt zwangsarbeits-lager in 3.welt gebieten ... Metro Group AG - Gründer des Konzerns ist Dr. Beisheim, LSSAH Mitglied IBM Deutsche Bank Continentale AG, Varta - Hersteller von Reifen im 2. wk, betreiber vom kz stöcken, kz limmer Standard Oil Monsanto Bertelsmann - Verbreiter von "Mein Kampf" , auch nach 1945 hat der berstelsmann konzern "mein kampf" verbreitet, Bertelsmann besitzt die RTL-Group und verbreitet haus eigene Propaganda Die Medien-Konzerne UFA Wiesenhof - KZ ähnliche Massentierhaltung Aventis Sanofi - kaufte den Zyklon-B-Konzern Höchst auf Hugo Boss - HJ uniforms RWE, Vattenfall, Eon EnBW - lieferte den Strom für elektrische Zäune und Scheinwerfer in KZs http://www.kz-auschwitz.de/pix/photos/e_zaun09.jpg OSRAM - Scheinwerfer in KZs Telefunken - Hersteller von dem Propaganda-Radio, Die "Göbbels-Schnauze" genannt Lufthansa Arcor, Vodafone, Mannesmann http://www.gettyimages.de/detail/nachrichtenfoto/joseph-goebbels-29-10-1897-politician-nazi-party-nachrichtenfoto/548180151 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.225.57.42 (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


some videos about concerns, who made with in the holocaust einige videos über konzerne, die am holocaust teilnahmen ...

quandt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9hNjmJxc0U

opel, opel blitz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSflzubxN5g

flick https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO8vmMIdUxQ http://pictures.abebooks.com/isbn/9783570551431-de-300.jpg http://www.amazon.de/Der-Flick-Konzern-im-Dritten-Reich/dp/3486586831 http://www.amazon.de/Schatten-Flick-Konzern-Politik-Weimarer-Bundesrepublik/dp/3760909612

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NzAjv76Z5c

basf https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut62gt3LUYQ

chase bank https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNYHkCatPFo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.225.57.42 (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Polish numbers are low, German numbers too high?

Wikipedia's own separate page on the Polish deaths puts them at 2.7-3 million. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that number (3 million) mentioned in the figures from Lucy Dawidowicz provided in the article? Speaking of Dawidowicz' figures: the Anne Frank Foundation estimates on its website the percentage of Jews killed in Germany significantly lower in absolute aswel as in relative numbers: 90% vs 55% and vs 210 thousand vs 180 thousand (including Austria). Could someone shed a light on this huge difference and correct the numbers, also in the images?--Watisfictie (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
See also the Black Earth by Timithy Snyder. Many German Jews were forced to emigrate and survived.Xx236 (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
USHMM
522,000 January 1933.
Of them 160,000 - 180,000 murdered. Xx236 (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

In fact, Lucy Dawidowicz’s figures for Poland and Germany are on the high side although it is hard to tell since she combines Germany and Austria. This is mainly because the figures are now dated. Probably one of best sets of more up-to-date figures comes from Wolfgang Benz, writing in the Holocaust Encyclopedia, p.145. I have made a table comparing the two sets of figures, but don’t know how to post it here. Benz lists the figures by country as follows: Germany, 144,000; Austria, 48,767; Luxembourg, 720; France (including people of other nationalities), 76,000; Belgium (including people of other nationalities), 28,000; the Netherlands, 102,000; Denmark, 116; Norway,758; Italy, 5,596; Albania, 591; Greece, 58,443; Bulgaria,7,335; Yugoslavia, 51,400; Hungary, 559,250; Czechoslovakia, 143,000; Romania, 120,919; Poland, 2,700,000; the Soviet Union, 2,100,000. Because the country entries are not identical between the two table, it is difficult to just replace one table in the article with the other. The Anne Frank Foundation gets it figures from the Holocaust Chronicle, an excellent site directed mainly at students. Unfortunately, they do not provide sources for their figures. Benz is know for his research on casualty figures.--Joel Mc (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a problem of Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. If one accepts it, Eastern Poland becomes Soviet Union and the numbers of victims change. Which border is assumed by Benz? Xx236 (talk) 07:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Good point. In the Holocaust Encyclopedia (p. 141) Benz appears to use the 1933 borders. However, there are several tables missing from the copy (a pdf file) that I am using which might clarify this. I am far from my libes during the next 3 weeks and will have a hard time checking it.--Joel Mc (talk) 09:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Any ideas about how to edit this? We lose a lot, i.e. percentages, etc by just taking out Dawidowicz’s table, but there is some work entailed for combining the figures above with those in the table. --Joel Mc (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

New table for Jewish death toll

Having received no suggestions I put in an additional table which updates Lucy Dawidowicz's figures. I am not sure that this is the best way of doing this--it does look a bit messy--but given the differing formats of the two tables it is hard to combine them: Dawidowicz's figures are for pre-WWII countries and Benz's are for post-war ones. Lucy Dawidowicz's percentages are useful but cannot just be inserted into Benz's table. Any suggestions?--Joel Mc (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Two errors in the Bibliography

Bergen and Majer. Xx236 (talk) 08:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Corpses in the courtyard of Nordhausen concentration camp.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Corpses in the courtyard of Nordhausen concentration camp.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 27, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-01-27. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The Holocaust
During The Holocaust, approximately six million Jews were killed by Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime and its collaborators. Other victims of Nazi crimes included Romanis, ethnic Poles and other Slavs, Soviet POWs, communists, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses and the mentally and physically disabled.

This photograph shows less than half of the bodies of the several hundred inmates who died of starvation or were shot by the Gestapo in the yard of the Boelcke Barracks, a subcamp of the Mittelbau-Dora Nazi concentration camp located in the south-east of the town of Nordhausen. Numbers at the camp, which was used for sick and dying inmates from January 1945, rose from a few hundred to more than six thousand by the end of the war; up to a hundred inmates died every day.Photograph: James E. Myers

Archive – More featured pictures...

Joel Mc (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Photo is unrelated to the so called holocaust. How it became featured is likely due it the USHCMM using it incorrectly. Never Again, please.

"3 April 1945 247 Lancasters and 8 Mosquitos of Nos 1 and 8 Groups to attack what were believed to be military barracks near Nordhausen. Unfortunately, the barracks housed a large number of concentration-camp prisoners and forced workers of many nationalities who worked in a complex of underground tunnels where various secret weapons were made. The camp and the tunnel workshops had been established immediately after Bomber Command attacked the rocket-research establishment at Peenemünde in August 1943. The bombing was accurate and many people in the camp were killed; the exact number is not known. The men working in the tunnels were unhurt. 2 Lancasters lost." UK National ArchivesBoxofmatches (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on The Holocaust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Etymology

I'm confused by the idea that the term "holocaust" is rejected on the grounds that it refers to a pagan custom. The quote given as back-up presents a very different reason for finding the term inappropriate.

Weren't burnt offerings the norm in the Temple at Jerusalem? Isn't the only reason the practice is not part of Judaism that only in the Temple is it permitted to make sacrifice? 82.71.69.126 (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a reference there you could look at. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Spelling inconsistencies labor vs. labour

Both "labor" and "labour" are used in this article. Looks like could use some copyediting. -KaJunl (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Holocaust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Holocaust & Holodomor

Is this legit? I was reverted for the wording "the largest genocide in history", with the edit comment: "lowest estimate is lower than highest estimate of holodomor, so it's not correct to definitively state it's the largest". Uh-huh, but that "lower estimate" is lower because it's limited to Jews, not because the higher number is an upper limit on the number of people who may have been killed. Either way, the current wording makes it seem definite that the Holocaust ranks lower than some other genocide. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The article linked to by those words has people (not just Jews) killed in the Holocaust as 5.9 to 11 million, and the Holodomor as 1.8 to 7.5 million. (Hohum @) 04:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The article linked to explicitly says "5,933,900 Jews". Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. Any idea what the lowest RS estimate for non-Jews killed is? If 5.9 plus that is more than 7.5 then it's fair to definitively say it's the largest (i.e. it needs to be 1.6 or more.) (Hohum @) 16:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

A long forgotten letter: There is no similar public document of protest against Nazi occupiers by a high profile official during World War II that has come to light in any other European country.

The letter was presented to General Jürgen Stroop, the SS commandant in Greece who was a vicious Nazi leader who had previously been responsible for the death of tens of thousands of Jews in Warsaw and the complete destruction of the Warsaw ghetto after an uprising there.

Stroop was outraged at the Greek Archbishop’s defiance and threatened to shoot Damaskinos.

The archbishop bravely reminded the German authorities that “according to the traditions of the Greek Orthodox Church, our prelates are hung and not shot. Please respect our traditions!”

The Germans proceeded with the deportations. Damaskinos called the police chief of Athens, Angelos Evert, to his office and said, “I have spoken to God and my conscience tells me what we must do. The church will issue false baptismal certificates to any Jew who asks for them and you will issue false identification cards.”

Due to Damaskinos’s courageous stance, thousands of Greek Jews were spared.

In addition to this letter, Archbishop Damaskinos was pivotal in saving the lives of thousands of Jews in Athens. Together with the chief of police in Athens, Damaskinos ordered priests to give Jews Christian “baptismal certificates,” offering them Christian names and refuge from Nazi checkpoints and round ups.

For his efforts, Damaskinos was honored by Yad Vashem in Jerusalem as “Righteous among the nations,” an important designation given to non-Jews who risked their own lives to save Jews during the Holocaust. He is also recognized prominently in a permanent exhibition at the International Holocaust Museum in Washington DC.

The complete text of the letter, directed to the Nazi-imposed Greek prime minister follows:

To The Prime Minister Mr. K. Logothetopoulos ATHENS

Mr. Prime Minister

The Greek people were rightfully surprised and deeply grieved to learn that the German Occupation Authorities have already started to put into effect a program of gradual deportation of the Greek Jewish community of Salonika to places beyond our national borders, and that the first groups of deportees are already on their way to Poland. The grief of the Greek people is particularly deep because of the following:

According to the terms of the armistice, all Greek citizens, without distinction of race or religion, were to be treated equally by the Occupation Authorities.

The Greek Jews have proven themselves not only valuable contributors to the economic growth of the country but also law-abiding citizens who fully understand their duties as Greeks. They made sacrifices for the Greek country and were always on the front line in the struggles of the Greek nation to defend its inalienable historical rights.

The law-abiding nature of the Jewish community in Greece refutes a priori any charge that it may be involved in actions or acts that might even slightly endanger the safety of the Military Occupation Authorities.

In our national consciousness, all the children of Mother Greece are an inseparable unity: they are equal members of the national body irrespective of religion or dogmatic differences.

Our Holy Religion does not recognize superior or inferior qualities based on race or religion, as it is stated: ”There is neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal. 3:28) and thus condemns any attempt to discriminate or create racial or religious differences.

Our common fate, both in days of glory and in periods of national misfortune, forged inseparable bonds between all Greek citizens, without exemption, irrespective of race.

Certainly, we are not unaware of the deep conflict between the new Germany and the Jewish community, nor do we intend to become defenders or judges of world Jewry in the great sphere of world politics and economic affairs. Today we are interested in and deeply concerned with the fate of 60,000 of our fellow citizens, who are Jews. For a long time, we have lived together in both slavery and freedom, and we have come to appreciate their feelings, their brotherly attitude, their economic activity and, most important, their indefectible patriotism. Evidence of this patriotism is the great number of victims sacrificed by the Greek Jewish community without regret and without hesitation on the altar of duty when our country was in peril.

Mr. Prime Minister,

We are certain that the thoughts and feelings of the Government on this matter are in agreement with those of the rest of the Greek nation. We also trust that you have already taken the necessary steps and applied to the Occupation Authorities to rescind the grievous and futile measure to deport the members of the Jewish community of Greece.

We hope, indeed, that you have clarified to those in power that such harsh treatment of Jews of other nationalities in Greece makes the instituted measure even more unjustifiable and therefore morally unacceptable. If security reasons underlie it, we think it possible to suggest alternatives. Other measures can be taken, such as detaining the active male population (not including children and old people) in a specific place on Greek territory under the surveillance of the Occupation Authorities, thereby guaranteeing safety in face of any alleged danger and saving the Greek Jewish community from the impending deportation. Moreover, we would like to point out that, if asked, the rest of the Greek people will be willing to vouch for their brothers in need without hesitation.

We hope that the Occupation Authorities will realize in due time the futility of the persecution of Greek Jews, who are among the most peaceful and productive elements of the country.

If, however, they insist on this policy of deportation, we believe that the Government, as the bearer of whatever political authority is left in the country, should take a clear stance against these events and let the foreigners bear the full responsibility of committing this obvious injustice. Let no one forget that all actions done during these difficult times, even those actions that lie beyond our will and power, will be assessed some day by the nation and will be subjected to historical investigation. In that time of judgment, the responsibility of the leaders will weigh heavily upon the conscience of the nation if today the leaders fail to protest boldly in the name of the nation against such unjust measures as the deportation of the Greek Jews, which are an insult to our national unity and honor.

Respectfully, Damaskinos Archbishop of Athens and Greece

Following are the signatures of the heads of the major cultural institutions and organizations:

President of the Academy of Athens, Rector of the University of Athens, Rector of the Polytechnical School of Athens, Rector of the High School of Economic Studies, President of the Medical Association of Attica, President of the Roll of Barristers of Attica, President of the Union of Notaries of Athens and Aegean, President of the Journalists Union, President of the Association of Greek Authors, President of the Culture Association, President of the Piraeus Chamber of Commerce, President of the Athens Professional Chamber, President of the Greek Association of Chemists, President of the Athens Association of Pharmacists, President of the Dentists Association, President of the Athens Craftsman Chamber, President of the Piraeus Association of Pharmacists, President of the Greeks Actors, President of the Greek Association of Pharmacists, President of the Medical Association of Piraeus, President of the Athens Association of Commercants, President of the Athens Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Vice-President of the Greek Union of Theatrical and Musical Critics, President of the Medical Association of Callithea, Secretary General of the Panhellenic Association of Dentists, President of the Greek Industrialists Union, General Director of the Refugees Organization, General Director of Social Health Organization.58.165.112.104 (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on The Holocaust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Holocaust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Minor mistranslation

The word "Shoah" "שואה" in Hebrew means Tragedy, not Catastrophe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.121.232.50 (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2016

The opening line of this wikipedia entry reads "... was a genocide in which Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany and its collaborators killed about six million Jews." It then later explains that 5 million other people where killed during the holocaust. I suggest beginning the article with the 11 million death count and then later elaborating that a large bulk of those killed where Jews. The way its formatted at the moment seems politically motivated to make the holocaust simply a catastrophe that effected mainly the jews, whereas, if it is viewed objectively, should be seen as internment camps where enemies of the state (Jews, Romas, Communists etc.) where executed. This is doubly important because the first line is what appears in the google results, so for those who don't open the full article they will simply read "6 million Jews" as opposed to "11 million people". The latter seems more fair and balance and displays the atrocity in a much wider perspective.

Ayman Makarem (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Done Terra ❤ 05:38, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the above editors are unaware of this, but this issue has been discussed many times. The major historians of modern Europe with few exceptions define the proper noun, The Holocaust, as the mass murder or genocide of European Jews. This is even clearer with the use of the word Shoah. In all the discussions there has been no consensus to change the definition as proposed by Ayam Makarem. If references are needed they can be found in the archived discussions.Joel Mc (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Murder?

This is going nowhere, and the IP has no sources to back up any assertion Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Surely it should be killed or executed, as it was ordered by the government. (217.42.104.189 (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC))

Historians use the term murder (really has nothing to do with whether the government orders it or not). I repost an earlier one from about a year ago: "To take just one example: Timothy Snyder, Professor of History at Yale writes as follows "The term Holocaust was introduced after the war and, by the 1990s, was generally (although by no means always) understood to mean the mass murder of the Jews by the Germans. In this book the term Holocaust signifies the final version of the Final Solution, the German policy to eliminate the Jews of Europe by murdering them. (Snyder, Timothy (2010-10-12). Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (Kindle Locations 7591-7594). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.)Joel Mc (talk) 19:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)" Joel Mc (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Since it was ordered by the legal government it would be better to use the terms killed or executed. (217.42.104.189 (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC))
Murdered will do just fine. The terms you suggest give the mass-murders a veneer of legitimacy, whereas under international law and numerious tribunals they were seen as just that. Mass murder. The terms executions, etc are never used. I am assuming GF here. Irondome (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Considering the Allies violated international law far more than the Axis did the biased findings of any post-war tribunals are meaningless. (217.42.104.189 (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC))
I don't think we're discussing the Allies, we're discussing the systematic mass murder of completely innocent people by Nazi Germany. This has been discussed before, and sources back up the use of murder. Move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I am no longer assuming G.F. Possible SP trolling methinks Irondome (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not use the term "murder" with regard to the millions of innocent people killed by Stalin, so it should use the more neutral terms "killed" or "executed" in this article. (217.42.104.189 (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC))
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:Holocaust denial

A template that may be of interest to editors of this article has been nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Censorship of "Ukrainians" from article

In the list of targeted victims of the Holocaust, I thought it prudent to include Ukrainians in the list, since they were one of the largest groups affected. I wiki-linked to the article Holocaust in Ukraine. An estimated 3 million non-Jews in Ukraine were killed in the Holocaust (and obviously the gist of this is Ukrainians, not small minorities). The Holocaust and German plans itself specifically labelled Ukrainians as sub-humans to be enslaved or exterminated, as pointed out in the Holocaust in Ukraine article. PoeticBent is insisting Ukrainians not be mentioned, and the HiU article not be linked to, because it's "POV" or an "Easter Egg" (which I don't understand). I think history of the Holocaust shouldn't be censored, especially highly documented history. It also seems very POV to highly "ethnic Poles" and lump Ukrainians (who died in at least similar numbers) to "other Slavs" and "Soviet POWs". It goes without saying that not all Ukrainians were Soviet citizens, and civilians were not POWs. --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 21:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

There were near 15% Russians in Ukranian SSR in 1939 and it is known that nazis were more loyal to Ukrainians there. And how many Russians were killed in the occupied territory of Russian SSR and Belarus, and how many Belarusians? Cathry (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
We also have the article Ukrainian collaborationism with the Axis powers#Holocaust where more citations can be found, but ultimately, our policy says that exceptional claims must be supported by exceptional sources. Meanwhile, the edit made by User:Black Future was not supported by corresponding reference. Also, Easter egg links or submarine links are part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style which needs to be understood and followed by the user. Please, do you own legwork with that regard. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 01:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2016

All in the first paragraph, please change "precisely six bagillion and one Jews" to "six million Jews". Please change "were turned into lampshades and bars of soap" to "were killed". Please change "1.5 trillion children" to "1.5 million children". Please change "two-thirds of the nine trillion Jews" to "two-thirds of the nine million Jews". Please change "bringing the total to about 11 bagillion" to "bringing the total to about 11 million."

Thank you.


Melsg68 (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Vandal reverted, blocked. Thanks for spotting it. Acroterion (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction?

This section tells from the beginning there was no Jewish resistance and provides long quotation (an opinion) to support such position. Same section tells below that "An estimated 20,000 to 30,000 Jewish partisans (see the list at the top of this section) actively fought the Nazis and their collaborators in Eastern Europe", and this is just a matter of fact. I suggest to fix it by reducing the huge amount of space dedicated to opinion(s) in this section. My very best wishes (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

So, why do you disagree with this change? The summary of claims by this authors remained; I only removed a large quote and yet another paragraph that repeats essentially the same.My very best wishes (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
this section does not say that there was "no" Jewish resistance. The statements by Hilberg, Longerich, and Snyder, are more than "opinions", but research conclusions of three major historians. Hilberg was one of the first historians who raised the issue, influencing much of the further discussions, including inter alia Hannah Arendt. --Joel Mc (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
No one disputes this is view by historian which comes from his research (I am talking only about Hilberg, not about others). An it is prominently included even after my modification. But why should we dedicate so much space to it, including long quotation and yet another paragraph? Informally speaking, this is section about "Jewish resistance", and as a matter of fact there was Jewish resistance ("20,000 to 30,000 Jewish partisans"). But we start this section from claims that there was no resistance. This is contradictory. Does it mean there was no significant resistance to arrests? If so, this should be said, but not in way that bias whole section in the favor of an opinion which seemingly contradicts facts. My very best wishes (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I have clarified the Longerich quote which applies to the Polish ghettos, not to all of Nazi occupied Europe, thus no real contradiction. The Hilberg quotes are not repetitive, one explains the lack of resistance, and the other warns of the dangers of overstating the resistance and should remain. Joel Mc (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Let me tell this differently. We have a separate page, Jewish resistance in German-occupied Europe. Therefore, this subsection suppose to provide only a relatively brief summary of this already existing page. But it does not. Not only this is very large subsection, but it follows completely different logic. Correct logic: there was such and such resistance, but ... (because this is section about resistance). Not the other way around (there was no resistance, but ...). My very best wishes (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2016

Death marches (1944–1945), The last sentence of the second paragraph: "The last 13 prisoners, all women, were killed in Auschwitz II on 25 November 1944; records show they were "unmittelbar getötet" ("killed outright"), leaving open whether they were gassed or otherwise disposed of.[301]"

Please change "disposed of" to "murdered" because "disposed of" is an inappropriate term to use for deceased human beings, especially Jewish people killed in the Holocaust.

Thank you

Secretskin (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done. GABHello! 02:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
You beat me to it by minutes GAB. "Disposed of" was abhorrent. Amazed it slipped through. Lesson for us all, to go through articles literally word by word. Irondome (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"One of the deadliest genocides"?

Wrong forum

Far more people were deliberately killed by European settlers in North and South America, and by Stalin's attempts to starve the entire population of Ukraine to death in the 1930s. (213.122.144.169 (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2016 (UTC))

You cover this concern in the section header: "One of the". VQuakr (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The Holocaust was not one of the largest genocides in history. (165.120.157.73 (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC))
Wrong article. You're looking for holocaust denial. VQuakr (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
He's not denying anything. The Holocaust did not kill anywhere near as many people as Stalin, Mao, the European colonial empires, white settlers in North America etc. (1947David (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC))
What part of "one of the" did you not understand? Ian.thomson (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
5-6 million isn't even in the same ballpark as the other genocides. (1947David (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC))
It was twice that many (10 to 12 million), and in the span of 12 years. So about one million people a year. By comparison, most estimates for the deathtoll of the Atlantic slave trade are about that many over four centuries. Colonization of the Americas was about 70 million over about four centuries as well. In general European, colonialism faces figures comparable to the Holocaust (tens of millions) over two to four centuries. If you added all of them together, you'd still have fewer deaths per year. The Holodomor was more per year, but less overall. The Great Leap Forward is the only one you list that actually exceeds the Holocaust, but it is still measured in the tens of millions. Stop defending Holocaust denier bollocks. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not denying it happened at all, I'm just saying that it wasn't one of the largest genocides in history. Stalin's deliberate mass starvation of Ukraine killed more people. (1947David (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC))

You are downplaying the deaths and exaggerating other genocides -- a form of Holocaust denial. The Holodomor ("Stalin's deliberate mass starvation of Ukraine") killed up to 10 million, while the Holocaust killed at least 10 million (the 5 to 6 million you listed was only the Jews). Again, all of the genocides mentioned here (including the Holocaust) are measurable within tens of millions -- they are in the same order of magnitude. With the exception of the Great Leap Forward, most of them killed between 5 to 20 million people (or took place over centuries), with the Holocaust toward the middle. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I heard the Holodomor killed 15 million people. The article on this site says up to 12 million. Regardless, the British Empire was responsible for the deaths of nearly 2 billion people, the largest genocide in history. That was why many people were glad that Hitler destroyed the European colonial powers. (1947David (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC))
Do you have a source for your claim of 15 million in the Holodomor? 12 million (which is the upper limit given in our article, the more common ranges are less than that) would have the Holodomor tied with one of the common ranges for the Holocaust. And as I've said, colonialism lasted centuries. Divide two billion over the four centuries that the British Empire was out colonizing places, and you get 50 million per century, or 5 million per decade (and that's taking your estimation 2 billion at face value). The Holocaust killed twice as many people per decade.
Again, what part of "one of the" do you not understand? Ian.thomson (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
If you include the people who died from diseases as a result of the Holodomor the death total rises to 20 million. (1947David (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC))
Citation needed. And even assuming that was true, that's still in the same order of magnitude as the Holocaust -- tens of millions. Short of genocides that involve hundreds of millions within a decade becoming common, the Holocaust will remain one of the deadliest genocides in history.
Again, what part of "one of the" do you not understand? Ian.thomson (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I find this numbers game rather depressing. Still, I guess that we do need to give some reliable citations do help dampen down some of the wilder rumours. Yale Historian, Timothy Snyder (NYRB January 27, 2011) writes: "All in all, the Germans deliberately killed about 11 million noncombatants, a figure that rises to more than 12 million if foreseeable deaths from deportation, hunger, and sentences in concentration camps are included. For the Soviets during the Stalin period, the analogous figures are approximately six million and nine million." Joel Mc (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Those figures are lies. Stalin killed more than 20 million of his own people. (217.42.104.153 (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC))

Death

Holocaust is,first and foremost, genocide related to Jews, as it is stated in article so I think it should have only jewish death figure, not combined jews and non-jews. Non-Jewish death number in this case could maybe be in brackets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.26.40 (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit request: German euthanasia ("Action T4") until August 1941, then Jewish genocide ("Holocaust")

Could a registered editor please replace the following confusing paragraph in the lead:

From 1941 to 1945, Jews were systematically murdered in one of the deadliest genocides in history, which was part of a broader aggregate of acts of oppression and killings of various ethnic and political groups in Europe by the Nazi regime.[7] Every arm of Germany's bureaucracy was involved in the logistics and the carrying out of the genocide. Other victims of Nazi crimes included ethnic Poles, Soviet citizens and Soviet POWs, other Slavs, Romanis, communists, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses and the mentally and physically disabled.[8][9]

with this chronological correction:

Prior to the Jewish genocide, mentally and physically disabled Germans and Austrians had been secretively murdered from 1939 until 1941 under the Action T4 programme. When Action T4 was halted in August 1941 under pressure from von Galen, the personnel and the techniques were soon re-deployed to Poland for implementing industrial-scale killings in mobile death vans, and for establishing extermination camps with gas chambers for the mass murder of Jews.[1] Other victims after August 1941 included ethnic Poles, Soviet citizens and Soviet POWs, other Slavs, Sinti and Romani (gypsies), communists, homosexuals, and Jehovah's Witnesses.[8][9]

And on a completely different matter, could this careless and unsourced sentence please be removed:

"Germany's invasion of Poland in September 1939 increased the urgency of the "Jewish Question".

I am sure it was not the Wikipedia author's intention to sound like a Nazi, but unfortunately that is what it sounds like. Alternatively, please put the sentence in quotation marks and cite a source, to make completely clear that it is not a Wikipedia point of view. Thank you.

References

  1. ^ Sereny 1983, p. 54. Role of T4 "Inspector" Christian Wirth in the Holocaust.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.102.98 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Yad Vashem records

As of May 2016, from the museum's Names database FAQ: Questions about the Database > How many names are there in the Names Database? "More than 6.5 million personal records from a multitude of original sources appear in the Names Database... Currently, we estimate the number of separate individual victims who were murdered and are commemorated in the Names Database to be 4.5 million." Please update the reference in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.58.218 (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

"Since 1945, the most commonly cited figure for the total number of Jews killed has been six million. The Yad Vashem Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority in Jerusalem, writes that there is no precise figure for the number of Jews killed,[339] but has been able to find documentation of more than three million names of Jewish victims killed,[340] which it displays at its visitors center. The figure most commonly used is the six million attributed to Adolf Eichmann, a senior SS official.[341]" This is the paragraph that needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.66.58.218 (talk) 10:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The the "names data base" at Yad Vashem is a subset of the total death toll for Jews that has been established by historians. See Laqueur, Walter (2001). The Holocaust encyclopedia. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-08432-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) p. 145: "The best estimate of the death toll of European Jews in the Holocaust, on the basis of the latest research, is that at least 6 million persons were murdered by gas or shootings or died of starvation and physical abuse." --Joel Mc (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Soviet role in Holocaust

My father told me that when he was serving in the Red Army they were ordered to deliberately withdraw from cities and towns, leaving the Jews behind each time so they would be killed by the advancing Axis forces. (217.42.27.221 (talk) 13:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC))

WP:Identifying reliable sources doesn't list your father. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure there must be many sources available if this is true. Stalin was about to start a second Holocaust when he died in 1953. (217.42.27.221 (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC))
It's your job to present sources for your claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
There are multiple sources about collaborationist parties but little on the state-sanctioned involvement. Several sources say Red Army commanders deliberately allowed Jews to be killed or taken prisoner by the Axis armies. (217.42.27.221 (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC))
You say that and yet you still haven't presented any sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279842/Did-Stalin-condone-holocaust-How-warped-Soviet-values-prevented-stopping-death-camps.html (217.42.27.221 (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC))

You might want to try reading WP:Identifying reliable sources. Tabloid sensationalism is generally not regarded as equivalent to mainstream academic works by professional historians. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I've only been living in England for a short time but the Daily Mail is no less reliable than the Telegraph. Stalin could have bombed the camps but he chose not to because he approved of the Holocaust. (217.42.27.221 (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC))
'This tabloid is more reliable than this other tabloid' really doesn't help. You really need to cite mainstream academic works by professional historians with a relevant focus. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Typo in the summarisation grey bar/general information

Under the [4] note, after one opens the note, at the death counts of the Holoucaust in the general info grey bar section, there is a typo: "tol" while the right version should be "toll" (as it is right under the previous note [3] but not under this [4] one).

Note: Please consider that I am new here--I have just registered my Username, actually--in editing the locked up articles like the "Holocaust" one is, and I am not an English native speaker: for these I apology in advance for the possible awkwardness in case of my help with the typo. I just wanted to inform Wikipedia somehow that there is a typo in an article of such importance, and on top of all in the general summarisation section (inside the grey bar) which might be of even more importance for any reader as the grey summarisation bar might usually be the first thing that strikes any reader's eye/sight.

I hope I could help.

Kind regards, Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan.Sincl (talk • contribs)

Thanks! VQuakr (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why a German translation of Friedlander’s book is used for the reference. I believe that the relevant pages in the original edition (hardback) are 541-542. Moreover I am not sure that Himmler’s bragging adds any weight to the “coordination” claim for the SS. There is no doubt that the SS played a “leading role” (not a "lead agency” though), but I don’t know of a ref which claims that the Holocaust was “under the coordination of the SS”.

The “Posen speeches” piece is problematic. First of all, Breitland and Smith are German translations from the orginal English books. Secondly Bradley Smith is a Holocaust denier, formerly of the Institute for Historical Review. Finally, Longerich book has an English translation which would make it more accessible. Joel Mc (talk) 09:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as lead "agency," maybe I'm using the wrong word. But is there any serious question that the SS played not just a leading role, but the leading role in the Holocaust? There was a ton of collaborators from Germany and occupied countries, but the SS -- and by SS I include all the police/security services under its aegis -- was the alpha and omega of the entire process. All major actions (Einsatzgruppen, round-ups, creation of ghettos, death camps, gassing and burning of the victims, etc.) started with SS planning, and most of the victims were ultimately murdered by SS men or foreign auxilaries under their control. Scaleshombre (talk) 16:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
we really need a reliable reference if we use the term "the leading role" otherwise it is just a POV. Joel Mc (talk) 16:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC) The same is true for the claim that the SS provided a coordinating role. Joel Mc (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Some RS on SS's leading role:

Scaleshombre (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Yad VaShem holdings

Please edit the article to include the current holdings of the museum: From the museum's Names database FAQ: Questions about the Database > How many names are there in the Names Database? "More than 6.5 million personal records from a multitude of original sources appear in the Names Database... Currently, we estimate the number of separate individual victims who were murdered and are commemorated in the Names Database to be 4.5 million. In addition, the Database contains partial information on hundreds of thousands of victims whose fate cannot be determined on the basis of the sources available to us..." Please update the reference in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.6.46 (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

This is the paragraph in need of editing: "The Yad Vashem Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority in Jerusalem, writes that there is no precise figure for the number of Jews killed, but has been able to find documentation of more than three million names of Jewish victims killed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.6.46 (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Historiography section or article

So right now revising the Holocaust is nominated for deletion with many people supporting this saying that it doesn't need its own article because discussion of historiography could be done on the main article.

Is it actually feasible to do this? The whole reason I began a new article is because this one looked big and full already and I didn't want it to get too cluttersome. Historiography can be seen by some as too trivial a thing to include in a subject's overview.

If I included it here would the section likely stand or would it be a waste of time? I'm not really of the opinion that historiography should be included in main articles. I think they have a place in encyclopedias but more as an 'under the hood' afterthought. The casual reader is going to want to know the current consensus, not the past consensi.

Should I have called this Holocaust historiography as a main article for the Category:Holocaust historiography or similar? I know very little about what changes have happened over time among legitimate historians. I only had 4 sources to begin with:

  • Lichtblau, Eric (1 March 2013). "The Holocaust Just Got More Shocking". Archived from the original on 2 March 2013. When the research began in 2000, Dr. Megargee said he expected to find perhaps 7,000 Nazi camps and ghettos, based on postwar estimates. But the numbers kept climbing — first to 11,500, then 20,000, then 30,000, and now 42,500. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I figured as long as the subject could be opened that others who knew more could provide other changes in the popular viewpoint as they were recorded. I just want a place where historiography is focused on, where we don't just learn about what we presently think about the Holocaust, but WHEN we came to think those things. IE who presented the idea, when they did so, when a proposal became commonly accepted among scholars, when it got amended due to new findings, etc.

Surely historiography does have a place in encyclopedias right? Ranze (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

If you meant "historiography of the Holocaust", Revising the Holocaust was an most unfortunate title. Of course historiography of the Holocaust is an important subject. One of the formost historians working on the historiography of the Holocaust is Dan Stone. His most important book is: Histories of the Holocaust. Others which give added value are: Constructing the holocaust : a study in historiography; and, The historiography of the holocaust / ed. by Dan Stone. I don’t have time at the moment to give you the full references, but you should have no problem in finding them. Joel Mc (talk) 17:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that in this field the verb 'revise' is such a tainted word, I don't know of observing historical revisionism being a taboo on any other subject. I'm going to have a go at special:diff/735583702. Beginning with just a couple facts I guess a section is enough... but if I incorporate a bunch more facts like for example this Stone's books, I just worry it would grow too large and need to be split to a new page to keep this article from getting too big or getting to much emphasis over other stuff. I guess we can do that when it's needed though. Not sure where in the page to put it... but I guess someone will move it if I choose wrong. Ranze (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

AfD for Holocaust historian

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Romanovsky I started the original article and voted neutral on the AfD. The deleters actually have a good case based on WP policy, but something doesn't feel right. Thanks.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The article ended up deleted.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Unsure if I agree with that close, based merely on Google scholar cites, which guidelines say we should be cautious about using. Irondome (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree. There is a deletion review process. I don't think I should initiate it since I wrote the article in the first place.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
By all means, User:Thoughtmonkey, please initiate a deletion review since it was you who wrote the article. There were eight "keep" !votes there, and only five "delete" !votes. Not exactly a snowball closure. Meanwhile, the article was entirely missing the fact that Danila [Daniel] Romanovsky was a a long-time Soviet dissident (refusenik in Russian) politically active under the Soviet system. Seminars on history of Jews were held in his Leningrad apartment in the 1980s. People like him were dying in staged car accidents. Please find out if there's a possibility of developing that part of his bio better this time.[3] Poeticbent talk 18:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I will go ahead and start the review.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 August 3 Thoughtmonkey (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Strongly agree with Poeticbent's additional points. 8-5 in addition do not a consensus make. A poor close imo. Irondome (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
In commenting on Jujutacular’s puzzling decision (to me) to delete the Romanovsky piece, I said that I would drop the issue and move on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jujutacular#top But I am going back on that decision to support Thoughtmonkey and Poeticbent as they are reiterating the points I made on Jujutacular’s talk page. I might add that as a member of a society which makes its decisions by consensus, I do not recognise Jujutacular’s idea of consensus which overrides a majority of votes. Furthermore, maybe the notability guidelines have a role (but even here not the only role) in deciding to create an article, but as I have already said, I am uncomfortable deleting a referenced article which contains useful info. Heavens know that I have come across many a WP article which seems to me trivial, but I have never thought that they should be deleted. That smacks of book burning. Joel Mc (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it has anything to do with hostility toward Mr Romanovsky, at least I hope not. It seems like the deletionists here are more into WP as a Who's Who for professors.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I am following the principle of "Let the Wookiee win". Thoughtmonkey (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
Now closed as "no consensus", which means keep without hurting deletionists' feelings.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

More than 11 million?

Is the high estimate of 11 million based on Simon Wiesenthal's figure? I came across a calculation Roberto Muehlenkamp made where 14 million victims is another possible figure:

http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.co.at/2008/04/5-million-non-jewish-victims-part-2.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:502:3D80:AC82:C466:B90C:A932 (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a blog, and not an RS. ALL major historical studies put the figure between about 4.5 to 5.2 million. Nazi Germany was stopped before the already abominable death toll reached that level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.37.15 (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Should it be called "The Holocaust"?

There were holocausts in Armenia in World War I and Ukraine in the 1930s. (IssacSterling (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC))

Those have different names entirely - Armenian Genocide and Holodomor. GABgab 15:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
They have been widely called the Armenian Holocaust and the Ukrainian Holocaust. (IssacSterling (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC))
This has been raised before in the past, consensus (both here and in academia) is that "The Holocaust" refers to the subject of this article. Check the archives. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2016

I'd like to add some categories if I can. Moneyball123 (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. What is the name of this category? — Andy W. (talk) 23:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Article focus

I don't think the article should focus on Jews as much as it does currently. Jews were a tragic and disproportionate portion of those killed in the holocaust, but I think the focus of the article should be on the broader (11 million) scope of the holocaust instead of a subset (6 million) for purposes of inclusion and getting the complete picture. an example of how this would be implemented in practice would be as such. Where the article currently reads: "The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"),[3] also known as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "the catastrophe"), was a genocide in which Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany and its collaborators killed about six million Jews.[4] The victims included 1.5 million children[5] and represented about two-thirds of the nine million Jews who had resided in Europe.[6] Some definitions of the Holocaust include the additional five million non-Jewish victims of Nazi mass murders, bringing the total to about 11 million. Killings took place throughout Nazi Germany, German-occupied territories[7] and territories held by allies of Nazi Germany." I propose it should go more like: The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστος holókaustos: hólos, "whole" and kaustós, "burnt"),[3] also known as the Shoah (Hebrew: השואה, HaShoah, "the catastrophe"), was a genocide in which Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany and its collaborators killed about eleven million people.[relevant citation number] The victims included 1.5 million children[5], six million Jews[4], and represented about two-thirds of the nine million Jews who had resided in Europe.[6] Some definitions of the Holocaust focus exclusively on the six million Jewish victims of the Holocaust. Killings took place throughout Nazi Germany, German-occupied territories[7] and territories held by allies of Nazi Germany.

I will admit, the reason for my disposition towards the more complete, less Jew-focused version is due to personal experience, having personally never in my academic or personal life seen the Holocaust be used to refer exclusively to Jewish victims, it seems rather exclusionary to put such emphasis on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yilmaz1001 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe this issue has been settled in mainstream academic circles for decades. When scholars discuss the Holocaust of the Nazi era, they're mainly referring to the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jews by the Hitler regime and its collaborators. The Holocaust is the culmination of the Final Solution to the Jewish Question, the Nazi plan to eradicate the Jewish people. Clearly other groups, among them the Roma and Slavic peoples under Nazi occupation, were also victims of the Nazi's genocidal intentions, but European Jewry bore the brunt of these policies. They were the main target of the Holocaust, and are logically the main, though not exclusive, focus of an encyclopedic article about the Holocaust. Scaleshombre (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Scaleshombre, could you provide references for this "settled" question? Dimadick (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

On 7 March 2015, I wrote: "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."Archive 29 Joel Mc (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2016

I have more information 95.147.188.126 (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. RudolfRed (talk) 22:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

konzerne - beispiele

BMW - Quandt und die Göbbels Connection https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpQpgd_EeWY

Opel General Motors - David James Mooney , Vergasungs-Lkw Opel Blitz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSflzubxN5g

Volkswagen - Gründung durch Adolf Hitler, vollständige Gründung und Kontrolle des Konzerns unter Adolf Hitler https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc34hc8tXO4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qd1GD9iXzo

Deutsche Bahn https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVLc7TwlBcA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTjAjMRIyOU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5EGpR4we1c speditions-firma, kz deportationen

Siemens zug-bau-konzern, elektrische züge seit 1879, Betreiber des KZ Auschwitz-Aussenlager-Bobrek, strom-zaun von Auschwitz, baute die züge, mit denen kz-insassen deportiert wurden ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLZtOzHblA8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jptb4v1aBGw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUikwfkxUyQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobrek_concentration_camp https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPL1iq946Pg http://www.projektzeitlupe.de/de/ernadevries/essays/gfx/siemens.jpg http://www.projektzeitlupe.de/de/ernadevries/essays/pdf/Das%20Siemens-Lager%20in%20Ravensbrueck.pdf

BASF, Bayer, Agfa, Aventis-Sanofi, Höchst, Kodak, I.G. Farben - chemie-konzern, arznei-mittel-konzern, zyklon b hersteller, präparat be1039(mengele experimente) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQPHEh0SsoA https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.G._Farben https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IG_Farben#World_War_II_overview http://www.relay-of-life.org/images/speech_20071114/image12.jpg http://www.relay-of-life.org/images/speech_20071114/image15.jpg https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ig%20farben%20managers&qs=n&form=QBIR&pq=ig%20farben%20managers&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk= http://www4ger.dr-rath-foundation.org/images/igmanagers%5B1%5D.jpe


Flick - Der Flick-Konzern ist an der Errichtung des KZ Auschwitz beteiligt gewesen ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO8vmMIdUxQ https://cover.archinform.net/m/9783570551431.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Friedrich_Flick_Nuremberg.JPG/220px-Friedrich_Flick_Nuremberg.JPG


Thyssen-Krupp https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JefT_xV7MRA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP5CWO0hWUc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE5YbGJnr9U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8AdSHKywEU


Dr. Oetker - Gründer sind NSDAP Mitglieder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NzAjv76Z5c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naSs7SxQqAI

Messerschmidt GmbH - wurde von Bölkow, später Airbus aufgekauft https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nNdDkyiANo

... Nasa - Raumfahrt-Konzern , Wernher von Braun, V2 Rakete https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELE1q1JzMKs

Daimler

Adidas Puma - gegründet bei der olympiade 1936 von adolf dassler und rudolf dassler, betreibt zwangsarbeits-lager in 3.welt gebieten ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4e2t0W2uIQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i2ZUnBGLiQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EApi8iKZV9k


Metro Group AG - Gründer des Konzerns ist Dr. Beisheim , LSSAH Mitglied https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bESepvE3uvw


IBM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOJwA6NGZTE https://ironboltbruce.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/ibm_holocaust.jpg?w=510 https://2012patriot.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/ibm-2.jpg?w=450&h=676 https://www.amazon.de/Holocaust-Verstrickung-Weltkonzerns-Verbrechen-Nazis/dp/3549071302/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1468002485&sr=8-2&keywords=edwin+black

Deutsche Bank https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Bank#1933.E2.80.931945

Continentale AG Varta - Hersteller von Reifen im 2. wk, betreiber vom kz stöcken, kz limmer Standard Oil Monsanto Bertelsmann - Verbreiter von "Mein Kampf", auch nach 1945 hat der berstelsmann konzern "mein kampf" verbreitet, Bertelsmann besitzt die RTL-Group und verbreitet haus eigene Propaganda

Die Medien-Konzerne UFA

Wiesenhof - KZ ähnliche Massentierhaltung

Aventis Sanofi - kaufte den Zyklon-B-Konzern Höchst auf

Hugo Boss - HJ uniforms https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_8A9R_cafQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb2dDP3ohGE

Chase National Bank https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXh7HfEFhik

RWE, Vattenfall, Eon EnBW - lieferte den Strom für elektrische Zäune und Scheinwerfer in KZs http://www.kz-auschwitz.de/pix/photos/e_zaun09.jpg

OSRAM - Scheinwerfer in KZs

Telefunken - Hersteller von dem Propaganda-Radio, Die "Göbbels-Schnauze" genannt

Lufthansa

Arcor, Vodafone, Mannesmann http://www.gettyimages.de/detail/nachrichtenfoto/joseph-goebbels-29-10-1897-politician-nazi-party-nachrichtenfoto/548180151

firms and concerns in the holocaust

Mistake in section 3.9 "Death Squads"

The mistake is found here: "The most notorious massacre of Jews in the Soviet Union was at a ravine called Babi Yar outside Kiev, where 33,771 Jews were killed in a single operation on 29–3 September 1941."

The massacre was from 29-30 September, not from 29-3... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.178.67.182 (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

corrected, thanks. Noon (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

3.16 Climax

"By the spring of 1944, up to 8,000 people were being gassed every day at Auschwitz.[250]"

I looked at the source and it says 6,000.

On an unrelated note, I'm not sure why this source or this figure is included at all. If the source has any sources for its data it certainly isn't telling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.0.47 (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Corrected per source. The Holocaust Museum is a reliable source for material on the Holocaust. Acroterion (talk) 14:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Based on what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.0.47 (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Exactly what is your issue I.P? Irondome (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Uhh my issue is using a source that does not say where they are getting their information. The entire website is a glorified series of blog entries. They have pictures of documents but the text of the article usually has nothing to do with the document they present. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.0.47 (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
As noted, the Holocaust Museum is a RS. If you don't think so you could try asking over at WP:RSN. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
There was no explanation given why the Holocaust Museum is a reliable source. The reason I bring it up stems from a question I had about the 8,000 number. That number did not seem accurate, yet I have no doubt that it at one time appeared on the HM's website. The 6,000 number does not seem accurate either based on information I have seen (which generally cite a less than 2,000 per gas chamber figure). My concern is that the HM has no source for information such as the 6,000 figure, they may have pulled it out of a hat, and yet they are being used as a source for a large amount of information on this page. If I am wrong please point me to where the 6,000 figure is being derived from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.0.47 (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I have added a scholarly reference which gives numbers. A simple calculation shows that the HM figures are correct: i.e. during the spring of 1944 for a couple of months the figures were 5-6 times the previous monthly figs of 32,000 to 34,000 which gives a range between 160,000-204,000 which is close to 6,000 times 30 days. Most historians would consider the Holocaust Museum a reliable source. Joel Mc (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Possibly the earliest official report in existence which informs about an average of 6,000 victims being gassed daily and cremated at the four Auschwitz crematoria was published in November 1944 as the so-called War Refugee Board Report. It was based on a 40-page summary written by the Sonderkommando prisoners who both worked at the cremating and gassing plants, and escaped from the camp thereafter, Rudolf Vrba and Alfréd Wetzler. Their own Auschwitz notebook was cabled from Switzerland to the United States in early July 1944. It described the procedure and machinery of death in detail. Source: Robert Jan van Pelt (2002). "Intentional Evidence". The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial. Indiana University Press. p. 151. ISBN 0253340160. Length 570 pages. — Please include this book in references for Wikipedia article if needed. Poeticbent talk 04:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Done. Joel Mc (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: Change of basic definition

The basic definition of the Holocaust should mention not only Jews, but also "other minorities". I agree that the biggest group were Jews, but there were other groups of people targeted for systematic killing such as disabled, Soviets, Poles, Slavs, Gypsies. The first sentence is in contrary to other facts stated in this article and other articles such as "Holocaust victims". Most of the definitions on internet include "other minorities" or "others" in definitions. I will list the definitions of most prominent sources:

Source Definition include
Encyclopedia Britanica ..."millions of others"...
United Nations Holocaust rememberance ..."along with countless members of other minorities"...
Oxford Dictionary ..."as well as members of other persecuted groups"...
Cambridge Dictionary ..."and others"...
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum ..."millions of others"...
Wikipedia Victims of Holocaust people targeted for ..."various discriminatory practices due to ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, or sexual orientation"
Websters "the mass slaughter of European civilians"...
Jewish Virtual Library "Other individuals and groups were persecuted"...
Encyclopedia Britanica ..."and millions of others by Nazi Germany and its"...

I suggest to edit the first sentence and include "and other minorities" to the end so it is like: "was a genocide in which Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany and its collaborators killed about six million Jews and other minorities." And please remove "Some definitions of the Holocaust include the" from following sentence so it begins with "Additional five million non-Jewish victims"....

Lets not forget. Hraju (talk) 22:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

This edit request is not outside the bounds of reason and Hraju notes there are RS sources backing that form of definition. However it is far too controversial to do unilaterally. I would suggest an RfC on the subject in order to gain some degree of consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

We have been here before and while I don’t like to repeat myself, I wrote on the talk page (in two places) back in March 2015: "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. "While it is not possible to count the heads of the major historians, but 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) 21:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

How is it then, that all other definitions include "others" ? Also Holocaust victims page should not include other victims, then. I do my own research among major historians and will let you know in few days Hraju (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hraju: There is a difference between a dictionary definition and one that is included in a wikipedia piece. Dictionaries are unsourced and sometimes try to include examples from common usage. The definition in a wikipedia article should have a reliable source other than a dictionary (or another encyclopedia) if there is one. In this case there are plenty of examples that scholars and recognized experts on modern European history writing in English use the term “The Holocaust” to mean the mass murder of European Jews. More recent writers prefer to use terms such as “mass murder of European Jews” than Holocaust but they don’t use the word “Holocaust" as a blanket term for all of the Nazi mass murders. To be sure, many people in the street (and even some wiki editors) use the term to mean all Nazi mass murders, however there are important analytical reasons that historians and other experts have chosen to distinguish the Nazi mass murder of the Jews from other Nazi mass murders. But that is another long discussion. Joel Mc (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Historian Deborah Lipstadt addresses the question here: Lipstadt, Deborah (2017-01-30). "How the Trump Administration Is Engaging in 'Softcore' Holocaust Denial". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2017-01-31. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Joel Mc (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Joel Mc: I understand that most of the books about Holocaust target Jews, logically as they were the biggest part of the people in concentration camps. Also they suffered biggest portion of their population. But just because most books on this topics describe Jews, does not mean that Holocaust is described as genocide of Jews only. I wrote to several professors of history and got some responses from Harvard University and all states that they see it as "Jews only". Some say - this is just their opinion and not to be published, because there is dispute about it. Before final verdict, please give me some time to ask more people. Hraju (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

After looking on archived Holocaust talk pages, I can see that this topic was discussed many times all over. Wikipedia should mention at beggining of the article that the term "Holocaust" is disputed and that there are these two definitions - and list the two definitions. Currently, the page gives us a definition and mention that there is a dispute and only "some" definitions include that other minorities should be included in this definition. This is wrong from my POV. Hraju (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

On the Contrary, it is the "11 million" which is dubious

@Joel Mc: Has anyone seen this? ‘Remember the 11 million’? Why an inflated victims tally irks Holocaust historians I'd like to know if the 5 million number is truly an arbitrary synthesis meant to reach 5 million as Bauer and Lipstadt say (they are giants in Holocaust studies). It seems so because there is no telling why only those non-Jewish civillians killed by the nazis are included and not, say, victims of the siege of stalingrad. The earliest definitions of the Holocaust did only include Jews, and it appears that including others in the definition began around the 70s. I'm especially concerned because holocaust victims traffics in exactly that sort of "softcore denial", part of a general wikitrend of de-judaizing the Holocaust, not coincidentally by eastern europeans. Wikiproject Holocaust should definitely take a look at this issue, which could mean a substantial overhaul in current categorization.--Monochrome_Monitor 07:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Note I'm not saying other groups weren't persecuted, but I'm wondering whether the use of Holocaust as an umbrella term is appropriate.--Monochrome_Monitor 07:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

If you want to debate the use of the word Holocaust you need to take that up on another forum. All we do is repeat the consensus in reliable sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Clarified definition

There has been much discussion about the definition. I have tried to clarify it, mentioning other Nazi mass murders which should make it clear that the word Holocaust is not a catch all term for all Nazi atrocities which of course are many. Joel Mc (talk) 11:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Lipstadt scoring political points with the White House

Re: last edit by User:Joel Mc changing the definition of the Holocaust. Please note, Lipstadt's article for the Atlantic is not about the history of the Holocaust. Lipstadt writes about statements released by Trump administration recently, engaging in (what she calls) "historiographic pornography" or the "softcore Holocaust denial".[4] Lipstadt's article is positively not about history. Quoting it in our Holocaust summary is inappropriate and biased under the current political circumstances.

Meanwhile, going back to wp:lede citations in support of the Holocaust definition, there's absolutely nothing about the Holocaust on p.45 in Snyder ... whatsoever! On p. 413 Snyder defines the Holocaust in the following way: Though the term genocide in fact has wide application, it is often thought to refer only to the Holocaust. People who associate themselves with victims will wish to define past crimes as genocide, thinking that this will lead to recognition of the kind awarded to the Holocaust. Meanwhile, people associated with states that perpetrated a genocide resist the term with great energy, because they believe that its acceptance would be tantamount to acceptance of a role in the Holocaust. — In other words, Snyder (as quoted) supports the term "genocide" in this context rather than the term "mass murder".[5] Poeticbent talk 21:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my mistake in the Snyder reference. The actual page number is 389. There he writes, "In this book the term Holocaust signifies the final version of the Final Solution, the German policy to eliminate the Jews of Europe by murdering them" and further on, same page: "I prefer mass killing to genocide for a number of reasons..." Re: the Lipstadt reference. I used it as a reference because she stated plainly what she has written in many places and referred to as well in her testimony at the David Irving trial: She writes, "There were indeed millions of innocent people whom the Nazis killed in many horrific ways, some in the course of the war and some because the Germans perceived them—however deluded their perception—to pose a threat to their rule. They suffered terribly. But that was not the Holocaust...The Holocaust was something entirely different. It was an organized program with the goal of wiping out a specific people." She is a recognized historian and scholar and I thought that she put the issue sucinctly, clarifying a point that has come up many times on this talk page. --Joel Mc (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
(got an edit conflict an am repasting this) It would have been nice if we had finished the discussion before you made your changes to the text. I have given above the correct page ref for Snyder where indeed he states his definition of the Holocaust and the reason that he doesn't use the word genocide. I believe that what is lost also is the implication that major historians define the Holocaust as the mass murder (or genocide) of European Jews. You can't tell that from your changed text. Still believe that the Lipstadt quote gave some added insight, it is a pity to lose such an accessible ref. Joel Mc (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I hear you. For Deborah Lipstadt the Holocaust is about "wiping out a specific people" i.e. the Jewish people. I think our article makes it clear. Almost every reputable historian attempts to define the Holocaust (as their terms of reference) slightly differently for the purpose of supporting statements made on the pages of their own books. And I think, our article reflects that too. I tried to retain as much of your recent edit as humanly possible. Poeticbent talk 23:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
To clarify a point: our page numbers differ, your quote of Snider appears on p. 390 in my book. More importantly it follows the categoric statement "I prefer mass killing to genocide for a number of reasons….The term genocide gives rise to inevitable and intractable controversies. It relies upon the intention of the perpetrator in two places: “intent to destroy” a certain group “as such.” It can be argued that policies of mass killing were not genocide, because rulers had some other “intent,” or because they intended to kill someone, but not a specified group “as such.”" pp.389-390. Re: Lipstadt scoring political points with the White House ( I believe you mean "scoring political points against the White House). I doubt that she was interested in scoring points, but rather in educating readers about the meaning of the Holocaust which is often misunderstood. Her take is actually quite mainstream among historians. I think that her quote is most appropriate to the article, but it is not worth getting into an edit war. Joel Mc (talk) 10:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Jewish Deaths in Labour Camps in Tunisia

I have removed the following sentence from the 'North Africa' section of the article: 'More than 2,500 Tunisian Jews died in slave labor camps during the German occupation.[1]'

  1. ^ Friedmann, Jan (23 May 2007). "World War II: New Research Taints Image of Desert Fox Rommel". Spiegel Online. Retrieved 4 March 2016.

The reason for removing this is that the source is a journalistic book review which is not likely to be an authoritative source. The following source indicates that 2,500 was the total number of deaths of Jews in Tunisia during the period of German occupation, not deaths in labour camps. Indeed this source is specific that most of those 2,500 were killed by Allied bombing, rather than in labour camps. It is possible that the total number of deaths has been accidentally conflated with the number of deaths in labour camps in the Spiegel article.

Robert Satloff, Among the Righteous: Lost Stories from the Holocaust's Long Reach Into Arab Lands, PublicAffairs, 2007 p.55 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Nzj9AgAAQBAJ&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=more+jews+killed+by+allied+bombing+tunisia&source=bl&ots=uSmNGp0e2c&sig=cWz2f5ygZMk1r5WJMi3_DigIZVY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi83oWU5PjRAhULCcAKHWN2ApAQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&q=more%20jews%20killed%20by%20allied%20bombing%20tunisia&f=false accessed 5/2/2017 Mccapra (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

OK I see my edit has been reverted as it took me too long to post this explanation here on the Talk page. Could other editors please look into this as the statement in the article that 2,500 Jews were killed in Tunisian labour camps is pretty certainly untrue. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

According to Yad Vashem, 'tens' of Jews died in 'the biggest most lethal' camps in Tunisia, rather than 2,500. See http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/education/newsletter/25/algeria_marocco.asp#!prettyPhoto Mccapra (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

According to this source the total number of Jewish deaths in Tunisian labour camps was 46. http://www.pjvoice.com/v27/27006tunisia.aspx Mccapra (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


In the Jewish Holocaust Museum, there is an exhibit “Shoah,” curetted by Yad Vashem and located at Block 27 at the Auschwitz Museum. The Jews from pro-Nazi Vichy Tunisia and Italian Libya who were murdered in the Shoah can be found in the Book of Names in the last room of the museum.

There is also a table of Jewish losses in the Shoah according to country that is displayed, where one will see that the victims from Italian Libya and Vichy Tunisia are listed: 600 and 250 respectively.

I was there and visited the exhibit Shoah in 2014, one year after it was created. I also read: The primary motivation was the Nazis’ antisemitic racist ideology. Between 1933 and 1941 Nazi Germany pursued a policy that dispossessed the Jews of their rights and their property, followed by the branding and concentration of the Jewish population. This policy gained broad support in Germany and much of occupied Europe. In 1941, following the invasion of the Soviet Union, the Nazis and their collaborators launched the systematic mass murder of the Jews. By 1945 nearly six million Jews had been murdered.

It was correct to remove the quotation of 2,500 Tunisian Jews, also because many Jews in Vichy Tunisia were French, Italian, and British.It is incorrect to use "Tunisian Jews."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Henia_Perlman (talk • contribs)

@Henia Perlman: Please put new posts at the bottom of the thread they belong to, indent your posts with a colon (:), and sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Put in the only ref I could find. Joel Mc (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Holocaust/Archive_30&oldid=1137235173"