![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
The lead's discussion of scholars disagreeing about what the term Holocaust should apply to is bugging me. Although it is an important topic that should be mentioned somewhere in the article, what's more important for the lead is not what the Holocaust should mean to people but what it does mean to people. If reliable sources state that in general the term Holocaust is understood to include the murder of non-Jews let the lead say so, but if reliable sources say that in general the Holocaust is understood to refer to the murder let it say that. But scholarly disagreements about hypothetical ideals do not belong in the lead.-- Anewpester ( talk) 03:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Please read this link from the USHMM which defines the Holocaust. This pretty much is in agreement with our lead [3]-- Woogie10w ( talk) 16:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
ONE- The historical background of European
Antisemitism needs to be addressed in a factual manner
TWO- The article is highly misleading when it equates the fate of the other groups persecuted by the Nazis with the Jews. By including the Poles and Roma we have opened Pandora’s box to allow in all persons who died at the hands of the Nazi’s.
THREE-The poor coverage of Nazi crimes in the USSR in this article reflects prevailing view of scholars in the English speaking world.--
Woogie10w (
talk)
15:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree, on this page I have argued in vain-German Wikipedia should be our guide, de:Holocaust, the Holocaust should be only the Jewish victims of the Nazis, all others should be on a separate page-- Woogie10w ( talk) 14:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This page is turning into discussion of the Holocaust, rather than a discussion of this article. The only purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the article, so make a proposal or go away. Permitted proposals must comply with NPOV, V and NOR - it does not matter what any editor thinks. Nor can an editor synthesize from different sources, or promote his or her own argument based on sources. Any argument must come from a significant authority in a reliable source. If you do not have time to do the research, go away. This is not a chat room.
Slrubenstein |
Talk
23:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I am opposed to this material in the lead:
I have two problems. First, I have no objction to this material in the body of the article - but thislevel of detail (naming names) belongs in the body; the lead should summarize the body (e.g."there is a debate as to whether the Holocuast in unique, and a debate as to whether it is exclusively Jewish") with an account of the debate in the body. Second, as an account of th debate this is very anemic. Woogie just added the line about Wiesel and Bauer, with no citations. In addition to citations, we need to know why they hold this view (as is the case with Wiesenthal). This is an encyclopedia. Saying that x holds a particular view is not really educating anyone; what matters is their reasons forholding that view. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
You are responsible for content you add. Are you saying that it is better not to have a citation? Are you saying it is better not to provide their reasoning? Please explain how this is better?
Slrubenstein |
Talk
01:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
BUT THERE IS A CITATION, BARENBAUM HAS AN ESSAY ON THE TOPIC WHERE HE EXPLAINS THEIR POVs. --
Woogie10w (
talk)
01:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Also Eli Wiesel and Simon Wiesenthal are well known figures, people will recognize their names, contrasting their POVs back up our lead with credible sources. Tell me "some scholars should replace this.--
Woogie10w (
talk)
01:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
"some scholars" wesel words in my opinion--
Woogie10w (
talk) 01:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Since this is such a contentious issue it is best to back up the arguments with the opinions of respected and well known figures. Readers will know up front that there is a debate and what are the main arguments. This was not done previously.--
Woogie10w (
talk)
02:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
When we edit this article we should recognize that the Holocaust is a topic that is not exclusively in the academic domain, hence the views of experts outside the academic community are relevant here. Prior to the 1978 TV mini-series Holocaust the topic was for the most part in the domain of professional historians. Since then the Holocaust has become commercialized and trivialized in ways that would have been unthinkable prior to 1978. The Holocaust is taught in our schools in order to conform to the current point view of the general public; the views of the academic community are not always taken into account when the curriculum is formulated. The article should reflect this reality.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 13:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
For a discussion of the impact of the 1978 TV series I recommend Popular culture and the shaping of Holocaust memory in America By Alan L. Mintz. Prior to 1978 the Holocaust was not part of popular American culture. -- Woogie10w ( talk) 14:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Holocaust page should in theory have a NPOV presenting the full range of scholarly opinion. Our problem in a nutshell is that editors tend to push their own POV, in good faith. With regard to the uniqueness of the Holocaust there seem to be three schools of thought. The first being those like Eli Wiesel who view the Holocaust pertaining only to Jews. The second and middle of the road POV found on the website of the USHMM, which has prevailed on this page; by including other defined groups in the scope of the Holocaust. The third POV found in the depths of cyberspace includes any and all groups that they define as Holocaust victims. We need to have a better exposition on this page of the question Is the Holocaust Unique? A clear and concise presentation of the arguments backed up by reliable scholarly sources.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 00:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Can we distill these opposing POV into a readable passage that can be inserted the article?-- Woogie10w ( talk) 01:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Look at categories Category:Operation Reinhard belongs to. I think we need a category for German operations that were targeting military populations (Jewish and otherwise), not military. What do you think? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
"All Poles", Heinrich Himmler swore, "will disappear from the world"...(in the current article). Genocide was not limited to Jews or Roma, Poles were slated for elimination as well. Ronabop ( talk) 07:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The Kashubian language is closly related to Polish, Kashubs are ethnic Polish. Volksdeutsche spoke German, an unrelated language-Many Kashubians would have learned the German language in German schools prior to 1919- Woogie10w ( talk) 13:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
<--I'm not trying to BS you and I'm not sure why you think I am. Kashubians could sign the Volksdeutsche list and get special treatment. Ethnic Poles couldn't. That's it. radek ( talk) 20:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
You raised a great point Ronabop. Percentages are meaningless when intent is evident and the action began. Moreover, most people who died in the camps were not Jews. Their deaths are no less a tragedy and the plan behind their deaths, no less diabolical. Tobit2 ( talk) 13:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI the ultra right wing in Germany use the term “Bomben Holocaust” de:Holocaust (Begriff) when referring the Allied bombing of Germany. In public German neo-Nazis never use the term Holocaust as we understand the term , implying denial which is illegal in Germany. -- Woogie10w ( talk) 11:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Yehuda Bauer contends that the Holocaust should include only Jews because it was intent of the Nazis to exterminate all Jews, the other groups were not to be totally annihilated Please note the following from Wikipedia:Assume good faith:-- Woogie10w ( talk) 19:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I can be sarcastic if I choose to do so, that is my prerogative. My point is that the current view of the Holocaust has been defined by US politicians who dictate the curriculum in American schools. The academic community toes the party line because the taxpayers cut their checks. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you. My view is that this page should tell readers what actually happened in WW2, not propaganda dished out by American politicians. This page has a narrow American POV that needs to be corrected. In my opinion, this is not at all likely. Hint, I bet my bottom dollar that 999 out of 1,000 US history teachers have never heard of the Wola massacre.Fixing this article is a lost cause-- Woogie10w ( talk) 21:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I support the recent edits. They represented a significant and knowledgeable improvement. I vote from restoring them. Tobit2 ( talk) 12:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
"In contrast to Nazi genocidal policy that targeted all of Poland's 3.3 million Jewish men, women, and children for destruction, Nazi plans for the Polish Catholic majority focused on the murder or suppression of political, religious, and intellectual leaders. This policy had two aims: first, to prevent Polish elites from organizing resistance or from ever regrouping into a governing class; second, to exploit Poland's leaderless, less educated majority of peasants and workers as unskilled laborers in agriculture and industry.
(outdent) The question is: Does somewhere in the pamphlet the USHMM define this as part of the Holocaust? Answer - no, it did not. In fact, the only time the term "Holocaust" appears in the pamphlet is in the name of the publisher, USHMM. So is there any evidence that lapanki and Germanization of Polish children are considered to be a part of the Holocaust? You have got to provide something if you want to have this paragraph in here, this WP:BURDEN is not on me. And to second my comment above: I am all for inclusion of these tragedies in articles where it fits the context. This is already the case, both matters in question have their articles and are covered in numerous other articles, too. The scope of this article however is a different one. Skäpperöd ( talk) 18:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Then cite them. Cite where they support your assertion and we don't have an argument. You are not interested in actually discussing, but only repeat what you think the sources want to imply and what you think I said or thought. I never questioned the reliability of the sources, I just showed that they don't say what you say they say. I never said that only a dead man is a Holocaust victim. I never pushed a POV, I evaluated the source you presented in regard to what it was supposed to source. I think we should take a break and await some comments - for now only on the factual and not on the behavioral issue. See below. Skäpperöd ( talk) 05:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I am traveling behind the Great Firewall of C so am being continually cut off or blocked fromn WP, but I did want to express my praise and support for Skapperod's edit. I had feared that we would never be able to clean up this messy piece and I am glad to say he seems to have done it. I can';t get involved in the issues that seem to have sprouted up until I get back to my library at the end of May. I put two "reference needed" tags in the Application of the term Holocaust to non-Jewish victims section. The footnote What Makes the Holocaust Unique?, does not substantiate the claim that "Jewish organizations say" Without ref it can be misleading as other religious groups also use the Holocaust to refer to the genocide of the Jews i.e. Presbyterian Church USA.-- Joel Mc ( talk) 09:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I fear the new section title is not very user friendly in English. Crystal Night is often used (see Columbia Guide to the Holocaust and the German Kristallnacht is also used in English and in particular in WP. However to the best of my knowledge Reichskristallnact is seldom used in English.-- Joel Mc ( talk) 11:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
This section looks like propaganda rather than an encyclopedia. It is one-sided, coming off as a disingenuous attempt defend the position held by certain scholars and organizations. The section should either be re-titled, "Jewish Opinions on Why Others Should Not Be Included in the Holocaust," or actually explore the issue. Tobit2 ( talk) 01:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Jewish Opinions Wow, you suprise me. That's going too far.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 01:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Father Charles Coughlin got in trouble for talking too much, my dad listened to him-- Woogie10w ( talk) 01:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The section certainly needs expansion in a way that as many expert sources as possible are introduced and sorted according to their stance of to what groups of victims the term Holocaust applies. A glance at previous talk page section reveals (1) that endless discussions about the scope of the Holocaust, and thus eventually the scope of this article, will only end that way; and (2) that S.L.Rubenstein, Paul B., Anewpester and many others seem to have a fairly good knowledge of what sources fall into this scope and access to a variety of those sources. Skäpperöd ( talk) 09:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Date of Kristallnacht is given correctly (1938) in the heading but wrongly (1939) in the body text. 89.240.108.230 ( talk) 18:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be an awful lot of discussion about the persecution of Poles and other Polish issues in these discussions. Surely the focus of the Holocaust should always be on the Jews. After all, the Holocaust was directed at the Jewish population, and it was the Jews who suffered by far the most in sheer percentages killed. Wallie ( talk) 13:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe this section should be renamed to "Resistance" because it was not just the Jews who resisted the Nazis. Not all Polish resistance fighters were Jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.186.81 ( talk) 19:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Shoah is a documentary film and there is nothing in the movie that suggests that "some Poles were involved with the persecution of Jewish people" unless we are talking about the blackmailers. There was a lot so-called bystanders or people who did not care or even people who were glad that the Jews are being removed but Poles were not involved in the Holocaust and were also victims of the Nazi German barbarity. You made some bold statements one has to be very careful about.-- Jacurek ( talk) 14:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
In 1979 President Carter set up the Holocaust Commission and defined the Holocaust as the killing of 6 million Jews and 5 million others. The political-educational establishment in the US has defined the 5 million others as Poles, Soviet POW, Gays, the disabled and Roma. This is wrong in my opinion. The figure of 5 million others is comprised of the following ONE- 1.6 million deaths in Nazi camps in Germany as detailed by Eugon Kogon in The Theory and Practice of Hell TWO- 3.3 million Soviet POW deaths THREE-100,000 disabled killed in T-4. The Poles and Roma don’t belong on this page as separate groups because they are already included in the total of 1.6 million deaths in Nazi camps located in Germany. The figure of 1.6 million includes French, Germans, Czechs and Dutch along with the Poles & Roma-- Woogie10w ( talk) 14:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
A common German practice in occupied Poland was to round up at random civilians on the streets of Polish cities to be sent to Germany as forced laborers.[178]The term "łapanka" carried a sardonic connotation from the word's earlier use for the children's game known in English as "tag." Between 1942 and 1944 there were around 400 victims of this practice daily in Warsaw alone, with numbers on some days reaching several thousand. For example, on September 19, 1942, close to 3000 men and women caught in the round-ups all over Warsaw the previous two days were sent by train to Germany.[179] Additionally, between 20,000 and 200,000[180] [181] Polish children were forcibly separated from their parents and, after undergoing scrutiny to ensure that they were of "Nordic" racial stock, were sent to Germany to be raised by German families.[182] [183]
Facilities and methods used similiarily in Holocaust were used to exterminate those children considered not of German origin and thus "untermenschen" creatures by German scientitsts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Polish_children_by_Germany#cite_note-Greifetetal-14 At Auschwitz concentration camp 200 to 300 Polish children from the Zamość area were murdered by Germans by phenol injections. The child was placed on a stool, occasionally blindfolded with a piece of a towel. The person performing the execution then placed one of his hands on the back of the child's neck and another behind the shoulder blade. As the child's chest was thrust out a long needle was used to inject a toxic dose of phenol into the chest The children usually died in minutes. A witness described the process as deadly efficient: "As a rule not even a moan would be heard. And they did not wait until the doomed person really died. During his agony, he was taken from both sides under the armpits and thrown into a pile of corpses in another room.... And the next victim took his place on the stool."[4] To trick the soon-to-be murdered children into obedience Germans promised them that they will work at a brickyard. However another group of children, young boys by the age of 8 to 12, managed to warn their fellow child inmates by calling for help when they were being killed by Germans: " 'Mamo! Mamo!' ('Mother! Mother!'), the dying screams of the youngsters, were heard by several inmates and made an indelible haunting impression on them.' "[4] Some of the children were also murdered in Auschwitz gas chambers; others died as a result of the camp conditions.[20] Note the use of German gas chambers to exterminate the Polish child "untermenschen" and poison injections. -- Molobo ( talk) 19:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes indeed the USHMM includes Poles kidnapped in The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, CHILDREN DURING THE HOLOCAUST [21]-- Woogie10w ( talk) 22:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The USHMM Article entitled CHILDREN DURING THE HOLOCAUST [22] has a paragraph dealing with the kidnapping of Polish children. Case closed, the source is quite clear because it includes kidnapping of Polish children as part of the Holocaust, the source is reliable beyond question. There are no ifs, ands, buts or even in betweens-- Woogie10w ( talk) 23:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Wallie you wrote quite another matter to having Polish children being bought up in German ways time out, kidnapping is a serious crime not a misdemeanor, think about your remark-- Woogie10w ( talk) 22:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
On Wikipedia the kidnapping of Polish children is included with the Holocaust read- History of children in the Holocaust-- Woogie10w ( talk) 19:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This from the US Holocaust Memorial article CHILDREN DURING THE HOLOCAUST In their "search to retrieve 'Aryan blood,'" SS race experts ordered hundreds of children in occupied Poland and the occupied Soviet Union to be kidnapped and transferred to the Reich to be adopted by racially suitable German families. Although the basis for these decisions was "race-scientific," often blond hair, blue eyes, or fair skin was sufficient to merit the "opportunity" to be "Germanized." On the other hand, female Poles and Soviet civilians who had been deported to Germany for forced labor and who had had sexual relations with a German man -- often under duress -- resulting in pregnancy were forced to have abortions or to bear their children under conditions that would ensure the infant's death, if the "race experts" determined that the child would have insufficient German blood. [1]-- Woogie10w ( talk) 20:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Based on the discussions on this page I now realize why so many people have a poor opinion of Wikipedia. It is more than obvious that the many people contributing to this talk page have only a superficial understanding of the Holocaust. The level of the discussion is pathetic, sad to say the least. -- Woogie10w ( talk) 17:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The USHMM pamphlet is dealing with the situation of Poles during the ocupation. It mentions both lapanki and forced Germanization of Polish children. Nowhere it says that they were part of the Holocaust, or that the situation of Poles in general should be described as Holocaust. The only link to the Holocaust in the pamphlet is that it is published by the USHMM. Skäpperöd ( talk) 05:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The book mentions the forced Germanization of Polish children, but does not say they were part of the Holocaust. Though the book is titled "Poland's Holocaust", it is subtitled "ethnic strife, collaboration with occupying forces and genocide in the Second Republic, 1918-1947", thus certainly the author does not say everything mentioned in his book ist to be understood as a part of the Holocaust. Skäpperöd ( talk) 05:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Woogie10w-its clear those German actions are part of Holocaust according to scholar sources-- Molobo ( talk) 19:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again Molobo for standing up to defend Poland-- Woogie10w ( talk) 22:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Open for two weeks, no discussion in second week, no consensus for inclusion. Skäpperöd ( talk) 09:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Amen, finally there are people on Wikipedia who are paying attention to what is going on in this article--As we say in Brooklyn, its not over until its over, extra innings-- Woogie10w ( talk) 23:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I attempted to simplify the introduction and make it more accessible with this edit. I assume there are many watching this article, so comment away. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 13:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Any more comments on this? Otherwise I will have a go at the article intro again. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 09:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
We need to amend the reference to 6 million jews as having perished in Europe during World War II as several studies have shown the figure to be inaccurate and not feasible based on various census actually taken just prior to World War II.
Can anyone suggest how we can edit the article to ensure the reference to 6 million jews is either removed or make it clear the figure is in dispute?
Frank Lee Speaking ( talk) 03:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Wo, time out, smells like Holocaust denial to me. Lets be clear Holocaust denial is not on our agenda here.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 23:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
If you have "proof" that 6 million Jews did not die, present it here and we will consider it. I have battled Srebrenica genocide deniers for years and I am always sceptical when people come and say they have "proof" that the figure is innacurate etc. What is your proof? Do you have any? Oh, I thought so. Bosniak ( talk) 20:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Scholarly consensus is about 6 million Jews, give or take a million, plus 5-12 million others, depending on the criteria used and the way of generating the numbers... is there alternate wording, or sources, you are proposing? I think we can all agree that 6 million Jews did not die in the camps (straw man), that the means to kill and dispose of 6 million in the camps (another straw man) did not exist, but the article does a pretty good job of framing the holocaust outside of those "in the camps" constraints. Since you referenced census data, do you have a source that says that less than 6 million Jews existed, or whatever you're trying to get across? Ronabop ( talk) 07:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we can end this thread now. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 21:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
the introduction to this article is untrue and ridiculous. every arm of the German government was not involved with the Holocaust. Remember that they took over Europe and obviously some bigger things to worry about than Hitler's sick and twisted "final solution". CHECK THE SOURCES! JUST BECAUSE A VERY BIASED "HOLOCAUST SCHOLAR" SAYS SO DOESNT MAKE IT FACT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.90.26 ( talk) 06:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
"Soviet civilians" is used to link to Generalplan Ost - this should be changed to Slavs, since it covers many non soviet peoples. 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 06:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a minor correction to a photo that needs to be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AddQuality ( talk • contribs) 12:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Skäpperöd wrote: or that the situation of Poles in general should be described as Holocaust.--
Skäpperöd, Do you propose deleting the entire section on the Poles? ----
Woogie10w (
talk)
19:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
In 1979 President Carter set up the Holocaust Commission and defined the Holocaust as the killing of 6 million Jews and 5 million others. The political-educational establishment in the US has defined the 5 million others as Poles, Soviet POW, Gays, the disabled and Roma. This is wrong in my opinion. The figure of 5 million others is comprised of the following ONE- 1.6 million deaths in Nazi camps in Germany as detailed by Eugon Kogon in The Theory and Practice of Hell TWO- 3.3 million Soviet POW deaths THREE-100,000 disabled killed in T-4. The Poles and Roma don’t belong on this page as separate groups they are already included in the total of 1.6 million deaths in Nazi camps in Germany, separate from the death camps in Poland.The figure of 1.6 million includes French, Germans, Czechs and Dutch along with the Poles.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 02:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The Poles should also be considered holocaust victims because the Majority of Poles were Jews. Also, the Nazis treated everyone from eastern Europe as scum and subsequently killed them as well. It should be stated that the holocaust was the mass killing of Jews, and Eastern Europeans. (Konnow) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.246.93.243 ( talk) 17:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The proper source for this reference - 230. ^ Hancock, Ian. Jewish Responses to the Porajmos (The Romani Holocaust), Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, University of Minnesota. - should be http://chgs.umn.edu/histories/victims/romaSinti/jewishResponses.html Thanks.-- 96.42.47.21 ( talk) 07:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Since scholars do differ on what is the definition of the Holocaust, only Jews or all victims of Nazi genocide, perhaps a statement below the Victims-Non-Jews section to clarify this would be helpful and allow removing the troublesome "sometimes" statement which might easily be seen as diminishing the experience of non-Jewish victims. Something like this:
Non-Jews
Scholars differ on whether the definition of the Holocaust should also include the millions of other non-Jewish victims of Nazi genocide. [2]
Slavs
continue text as current
The point is thus made in NPOV fashion and without labeling these groups as apparent "sometimes" victims of the Nazis in the header. Markhh ( talk) 03:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
JEHOVAH WITNESS DEATHS found a more accurate number by the founder of the Watchtower Historical Archives-1490 deaths, not 2500-5000 http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a747700584&fulltext=713240928 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.59.35 ( talk) 18:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Given that the sidebar does include 'other victims' (without caveat), and, more importantly, that there is no umbrella article in Wikipedia for 'Nazi genocide' - that just redirects to the Holocast page - would it not be a little less offensive to the millions of non-Jews who died to be recognised as fellow human beings who suffered without insulting words like 'other' tacked on to the heading? Though clearly far more Jews suffered and the Nazis were far more dedicated to destroying the Jewish people, I am sure no-one wants to paint other murders as any less murderous. Wouldn't it be better for either all groups to be put together in the sidebar, or, since the word 'Holocaust' does have Jewish religious connotations, at least that a more evenly discussed 'Nazi genocide' page be set up? I'm sure this has already been discussed at great length, but nothing seems to have been done - and of course, due to the large number of potential vandals associated with such a potential topic, it is impossible to make any alterations this end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.111.28 ( talk) 12:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is a nice report on the oldest male surviver who is a JW. Wonder if this could go in the section. [23]
I edited the article to read "genocide....of Jews and others" but was reverted. Hadn't realised this had already been covered on talk page. I always thought the Shoah included the gypsies, homosexuals, and others who were murdered.
Beganlocal (
talk)
23:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
This article has changed. Gay men are now at the bottom of the page and they are "sometimes" Holocaust victims. They were Holocaust victims, this page is homophobic-- 170.170.59.138 ( talk) 15:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hitler was a gay. So how can he order to kill gays? [24] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.43.152 ( talk) 16:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The Holocaust was the extermination of the Jews and other people whom Hitler considered inferior. It took place from 1933 to 1945. Millions of people were murdered, half of them being Jews. When Hitler took over control of Germany, everything changed. Hitler was very against the Jews.Hitler , in an attempt to establish the pure Aryan race, decided that all mentally ill, gypsies, non supporters of Nazism, and Jews were to be eliminated from the German population.” His followers, who were the soldiers in the camps, were called Nazis. They did all killing that Hitler wanted done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scuduwump ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Billymuscles ( talk) 17:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: I DO know the holocaust really happened. I think the many standing concentration camps and photos of the atrocities that went on within them are proof enough of their existence.
That said, there is a vocal movement stating that it didn't really happen, and I'm wondering where I could find an objective (not "because they're idiots" or "because they're in denial") voice that explains their viewpoints so I can understand *why* people think this.
thanks.
74.47.147.68 ( talk) 13:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
People who deny the Holocaust should be directed to
Oskar_Gröning of the Schutzstaffel
Billymuscles (
talk)
17:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
And you want to compare the Croat-Serb (notice the lack of German interest in this) ethnic conflict to Shoah? It's ridicalous. -- Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji ( talk) 00:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, and about this "The USHMM reports between 56,000 and 97,000 persons were killed at the Jasenovac concentration camp[73][74] However, Yad Vashem reports 600,000 deaths at Jasenovac.[75]" Guys, guys. They just relied what the Yugoslav (Serb dominated, Belgrade-based) government told them! It's like saying that "however" Polish communists said 4 million people died at Auschwitz. It's just not serious. -- Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji ( talk) 00:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Btw, only Auschwitz (1.1 million or so) and Treblinka (850,000) had more than 600,000 victims. If you think a bunch of Croat fascists in their ramshack camp would beat the professional Germans and their industrial killing in effeciency, I have no further questions. -- Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji ( talk) 00:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and of course the Croats killed many thousands of Jews and Gypsies - THIS was German supported. I hope you can see the difference. -- Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji ( talk) 00:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, the Germans were (directly) involved in hundreds of wholesale village massacres in Belarus and in Ukraine, yet we classify it as simply "German war crimes" here (on Wikipedia), as Generalplan Ost was about something more and this was ad-hoc while trying to eradicte the partisan threat. -- Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji ( talk) 08:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
This is now 187 kb long, and very hard to load. It needs to be cut back. Please don't add any more. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Comments appreciated here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
We should add a quote. like Eisenhower's: "Boys, now you know why we're fighting." -- LandonJaeger ( talk) 02:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how it can be edited but the side bar for the Holocaust - has a glaring mistake:
Concentration camps were not death camps and death camps were not Arbeitslager. However the side bar makes no distinction....
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka and Majdanek (initially founded as a concentration camp but a death camp for most of its operation) should have their own section: Extermination Camps (or Centers)
Likewise Mittelbau-Dora and Ebensee concentration camp should be included but noted as work camps.
I think it would remove the ambiguity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.127.39 ( talk) 11:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the "Selection" image appears twice in the article? Crum375 ( talk) 23:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
There appear to be three definitions of 'holocaust':
Now I don't really care very much which of the three this article is about, but it should make up its mind. Ideally, there should be a separate article for each. (Which would also be a partial solution to the article being too long.) I don't know if there is enough material for the first definition, although that could contain the (main) discussion about what the word means. But there certainly is for the last two definitions. Also note that
Holocaust victims is about the second definition, whereas this article is mostly (but not exclusively!) about the third definition, which adds to the confusion. Actually, that article might be a good starting point for an article in the second definition.
This will lead to the question what the three articles should be called, but that is secondary to which articles there should be. Not being a native English speaker, I don't have the vocabulary in my head, so I'll leave that to others.
Finally ,there is the question of how this should be presented. Should 'holocaust' be a disambiguation page or should it start with one of the three proposed articles? However, that is also secondary to the main question which articles there should be.
DirkvdM (
talk)
07:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
The lead's discussion of scholars disagreeing about what the term Holocaust should apply to is bugging me. Although it is an important topic that should be mentioned somewhere in the article, what's more important for the lead is not what the Holocaust should mean to people but what it does mean to people. If reliable sources state that in general the term Holocaust is understood to include the murder of non-Jews let the lead say so, but if reliable sources say that in general the Holocaust is understood to refer to the murder let it say that. But scholarly disagreements about hypothetical ideals do not belong in the lead.-- Anewpester ( talk) 03:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Please read this link from the USHMM which defines the Holocaust. This pretty much is in agreement with our lead [3]-- Woogie10w ( talk) 16:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
ONE- The historical background of European
Antisemitism needs to be addressed in a factual manner
TWO- The article is highly misleading when it equates the fate of the other groups persecuted by the Nazis with the Jews. By including the Poles and Roma we have opened Pandora’s box to allow in all persons who died at the hands of the Nazi’s.
THREE-The poor coverage of Nazi crimes in the USSR in this article reflects prevailing view of scholars in the English speaking world.--
Woogie10w (
talk)
15:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree, on this page I have argued in vain-German Wikipedia should be our guide, de:Holocaust, the Holocaust should be only the Jewish victims of the Nazis, all others should be on a separate page-- Woogie10w ( talk) 14:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
This page is turning into discussion of the Holocaust, rather than a discussion of this article. The only purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the article, so make a proposal or go away. Permitted proposals must comply with NPOV, V and NOR - it does not matter what any editor thinks. Nor can an editor synthesize from different sources, or promote his or her own argument based on sources. Any argument must come from a significant authority in a reliable source. If you do not have time to do the research, go away. This is not a chat room.
Slrubenstein |
Talk
23:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I am opposed to this material in the lead:
I have two problems. First, I have no objction to this material in the body of the article - but thislevel of detail (naming names) belongs in the body; the lead should summarize the body (e.g."there is a debate as to whether the Holocuast in unique, and a debate as to whether it is exclusively Jewish") with an account of the debate in the body. Second, as an account of th debate this is very anemic. Woogie just added the line about Wiesel and Bauer, with no citations. In addition to citations, we need to know why they hold this view (as is the case with Wiesenthal). This is an encyclopedia. Saying that x holds a particular view is not really educating anyone; what matters is their reasons forholding that view. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
You are responsible for content you add. Are you saying that it is better not to have a citation? Are you saying it is better not to provide their reasoning? Please explain how this is better?
Slrubenstein |
Talk
01:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
BUT THERE IS A CITATION, BARENBAUM HAS AN ESSAY ON THE TOPIC WHERE HE EXPLAINS THEIR POVs. --
Woogie10w (
talk)
01:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Also Eli Wiesel and Simon Wiesenthal are well known figures, people will recognize their names, contrasting their POVs back up our lead with credible sources. Tell me "some scholars should replace this.--
Woogie10w (
talk)
01:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
"some scholars" wesel words in my opinion--
Woogie10w (
talk) 01:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Since this is such a contentious issue it is best to back up the arguments with the opinions of respected and well known figures. Readers will know up front that there is a debate and what are the main arguments. This was not done previously.--
Woogie10w (
talk)
02:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
When we edit this article we should recognize that the Holocaust is a topic that is not exclusively in the academic domain, hence the views of experts outside the academic community are relevant here. Prior to the 1978 TV mini-series Holocaust the topic was for the most part in the domain of professional historians. Since then the Holocaust has become commercialized and trivialized in ways that would have been unthinkable prior to 1978. The Holocaust is taught in our schools in order to conform to the current point view of the general public; the views of the academic community are not always taken into account when the curriculum is formulated. The article should reflect this reality.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 13:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
For a discussion of the impact of the 1978 TV series I recommend Popular culture and the shaping of Holocaust memory in America By Alan L. Mintz. Prior to 1978 the Holocaust was not part of popular American culture. -- Woogie10w ( talk) 14:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Holocaust page should in theory have a NPOV presenting the full range of scholarly opinion. Our problem in a nutshell is that editors tend to push their own POV, in good faith. With regard to the uniqueness of the Holocaust there seem to be three schools of thought. The first being those like Eli Wiesel who view the Holocaust pertaining only to Jews. The second and middle of the road POV found on the website of the USHMM, which has prevailed on this page; by including other defined groups in the scope of the Holocaust. The third POV found in the depths of cyberspace includes any and all groups that they define as Holocaust victims. We need to have a better exposition on this page of the question Is the Holocaust Unique? A clear and concise presentation of the arguments backed up by reliable scholarly sources.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 00:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Can we distill these opposing POV into a readable passage that can be inserted the article?-- Woogie10w ( talk) 01:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Look at categories Category:Operation Reinhard belongs to. I think we need a category for German operations that were targeting military populations (Jewish and otherwise), not military. What do you think? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
"All Poles", Heinrich Himmler swore, "will disappear from the world"...(in the current article). Genocide was not limited to Jews or Roma, Poles were slated for elimination as well. Ronabop ( talk) 07:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The Kashubian language is closly related to Polish, Kashubs are ethnic Polish. Volksdeutsche spoke German, an unrelated language-Many Kashubians would have learned the German language in German schools prior to 1919- Woogie10w ( talk) 13:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
<--I'm not trying to BS you and I'm not sure why you think I am. Kashubians could sign the Volksdeutsche list and get special treatment. Ethnic Poles couldn't. That's it. radek ( talk) 20:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
You raised a great point Ronabop. Percentages are meaningless when intent is evident and the action began. Moreover, most people who died in the camps were not Jews. Their deaths are no less a tragedy and the plan behind their deaths, no less diabolical. Tobit2 ( talk) 13:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
FYI the ultra right wing in Germany use the term “Bomben Holocaust” de:Holocaust (Begriff) when referring the Allied bombing of Germany. In public German neo-Nazis never use the term Holocaust as we understand the term , implying denial which is illegal in Germany. -- Woogie10w ( talk) 11:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Yehuda Bauer contends that the Holocaust should include only Jews because it was intent of the Nazis to exterminate all Jews, the other groups were not to be totally annihilated Please note the following from Wikipedia:Assume good faith:-- Woogie10w ( talk) 19:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I can be sarcastic if I choose to do so, that is my prerogative. My point is that the current view of the Holocaust has been defined by US politicians who dictate the curriculum in American schools. The academic community toes the party line because the taxpayers cut their checks. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you. My view is that this page should tell readers what actually happened in WW2, not propaganda dished out by American politicians. This page has a narrow American POV that needs to be corrected. In my opinion, this is not at all likely. Hint, I bet my bottom dollar that 999 out of 1,000 US history teachers have never heard of the Wola massacre.Fixing this article is a lost cause-- Woogie10w ( talk) 21:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I support the recent edits. They represented a significant and knowledgeable improvement. I vote from restoring them. Tobit2 ( talk) 12:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
"In contrast to Nazi genocidal policy that targeted all of Poland's 3.3 million Jewish men, women, and children for destruction, Nazi plans for the Polish Catholic majority focused on the murder or suppression of political, religious, and intellectual leaders. This policy had two aims: first, to prevent Polish elites from organizing resistance or from ever regrouping into a governing class; second, to exploit Poland's leaderless, less educated majority of peasants and workers as unskilled laborers in agriculture and industry.
(outdent) The question is: Does somewhere in the pamphlet the USHMM define this as part of the Holocaust? Answer - no, it did not. In fact, the only time the term "Holocaust" appears in the pamphlet is in the name of the publisher, USHMM. So is there any evidence that lapanki and Germanization of Polish children are considered to be a part of the Holocaust? You have got to provide something if you want to have this paragraph in here, this WP:BURDEN is not on me. And to second my comment above: I am all for inclusion of these tragedies in articles where it fits the context. This is already the case, both matters in question have their articles and are covered in numerous other articles, too. The scope of this article however is a different one. Skäpperöd ( talk) 18:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Then cite them. Cite where they support your assertion and we don't have an argument. You are not interested in actually discussing, but only repeat what you think the sources want to imply and what you think I said or thought. I never questioned the reliability of the sources, I just showed that they don't say what you say they say. I never said that only a dead man is a Holocaust victim. I never pushed a POV, I evaluated the source you presented in regard to what it was supposed to source. I think we should take a break and await some comments - for now only on the factual and not on the behavioral issue. See below. Skäpperöd ( talk) 05:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I am traveling behind the Great Firewall of C so am being continually cut off or blocked fromn WP, but I did want to express my praise and support for Skapperod's edit. I had feared that we would never be able to clean up this messy piece and I am glad to say he seems to have done it. I can';t get involved in the issues that seem to have sprouted up until I get back to my library at the end of May. I put two "reference needed" tags in the Application of the term Holocaust to non-Jewish victims section. The footnote What Makes the Holocaust Unique?, does not substantiate the claim that "Jewish organizations say" Without ref it can be misleading as other religious groups also use the Holocaust to refer to the genocide of the Jews i.e. Presbyterian Church USA.-- Joel Mc ( talk) 09:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I fear the new section title is not very user friendly in English. Crystal Night is often used (see Columbia Guide to the Holocaust and the German Kristallnacht is also used in English and in particular in WP. However to the best of my knowledge Reichskristallnact is seldom used in English.-- Joel Mc ( talk) 11:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
This section looks like propaganda rather than an encyclopedia. It is one-sided, coming off as a disingenuous attempt defend the position held by certain scholars and organizations. The section should either be re-titled, "Jewish Opinions on Why Others Should Not Be Included in the Holocaust," or actually explore the issue. Tobit2 ( talk) 01:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Jewish Opinions Wow, you suprise me. That's going too far.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 01:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Father Charles Coughlin got in trouble for talking too much, my dad listened to him-- Woogie10w ( talk) 01:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
The section certainly needs expansion in a way that as many expert sources as possible are introduced and sorted according to their stance of to what groups of victims the term Holocaust applies. A glance at previous talk page section reveals (1) that endless discussions about the scope of the Holocaust, and thus eventually the scope of this article, will only end that way; and (2) that S.L.Rubenstein, Paul B., Anewpester and many others seem to have a fairly good knowledge of what sources fall into this scope and access to a variety of those sources. Skäpperöd ( talk) 09:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Date of Kristallnacht is given correctly (1938) in the heading but wrongly (1939) in the body text. 89.240.108.230 ( talk) 18:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be an awful lot of discussion about the persecution of Poles and other Polish issues in these discussions. Surely the focus of the Holocaust should always be on the Jews. After all, the Holocaust was directed at the Jewish population, and it was the Jews who suffered by far the most in sheer percentages killed. Wallie ( talk) 13:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe this section should be renamed to "Resistance" because it was not just the Jews who resisted the Nazis. Not all Polish resistance fighters were Jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.186.81 ( talk) 19:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Shoah is a documentary film and there is nothing in the movie that suggests that "some Poles were involved with the persecution of Jewish people" unless we are talking about the blackmailers. There was a lot so-called bystanders or people who did not care or even people who were glad that the Jews are being removed but Poles were not involved in the Holocaust and were also victims of the Nazi German barbarity. You made some bold statements one has to be very careful about.-- Jacurek ( talk) 14:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
In 1979 President Carter set up the Holocaust Commission and defined the Holocaust as the killing of 6 million Jews and 5 million others. The political-educational establishment in the US has defined the 5 million others as Poles, Soviet POW, Gays, the disabled and Roma. This is wrong in my opinion. The figure of 5 million others is comprised of the following ONE- 1.6 million deaths in Nazi camps in Germany as detailed by Eugon Kogon in The Theory and Practice of Hell TWO- 3.3 million Soviet POW deaths THREE-100,000 disabled killed in T-4. The Poles and Roma don’t belong on this page as separate groups because they are already included in the total of 1.6 million deaths in Nazi camps located in Germany. The figure of 1.6 million includes French, Germans, Czechs and Dutch along with the Poles & Roma-- Woogie10w ( talk) 14:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
A common German practice in occupied Poland was to round up at random civilians on the streets of Polish cities to be sent to Germany as forced laborers.[178]The term "łapanka" carried a sardonic connotation from the word's earlier use for the children's game known in English as "tag." Between 1942 and 1944 there were around 400 victims of this practice daily in Warsaw alone, with numbers on some days reaching several thousand. For example, on September 19, 1942, close to 3000 men and women caught in the round-ups all over Warsaw the previous two days were sent by train to Germany.[179] Additionally, between 20,000 and 200,000[180] [181] Polish children were forcibly separated from their parents and, after undergoing scrutiny to ensure that they were of "Nordic" racial stock, were sent to Germany to be raised by German families.[182] [183]
Facilities and methods used similiarily in Holocaust were used to exterminate those children considered not of German origin and thus "untermenschen" creatures by German scientitsts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Polish_children_by_Germany#cite_note-Greifetetal-14 At Auschwitz concentration camp 200 to 300 Polish children from the Zamość area were murdered by Germans by phenol injections. The child was placed on a stool, occasionally blindfolded with a piece of a towel. The person performing the execution then placed one of his hands on the back of the child's neck and another behind the shoulder blade. As the child's chest was thrust out a long needle was used to inject a toxic dose of phenol into the chest The children usually died in minutes. A witness described the process as deadly efficient: "As a rule not even a moan would be heard. And they did not wait until the doomed person really died. During his agony, he was taken from both sides under the armpits and thrown into a pile of corpses in another room.... And the next victim took his place on the stool."[4] To trick the soon-to-be murdered children into obedience Germans promised them that they will work at a brickyard. However another group of children, young boys by the age of 8 to 12, managed to warn their fellow child inmates by calling for help when they were being killed by Germans: " 'Mamo! Mamo!' ('Mother! Mother!'), the dying screams of the youngsters, were heard by several inmates and made an indelible haunting impression on them.' "[4] Some of the children were also murdered in Auschwitz gas chambers; others died as a result of the camp conditions.[20] Note the use of German gas chambers to exterminate the Polish child "untermenschen" and poison injections. -- Molobo ( talk) 19:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes indeed the USHMM includes Poles kidnapped in The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, CHILDREN DURING THE HOLOCAUST [21]-- Woogie10w ( talk) 22:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
The USHMM Article entitled CHILDREN DURING THE HOLOCAUST [22] has a paragraph dealing with the kidnapping of Polish children. Case closed, the source is quite clear because it includes kidnapping of Polish children as part of the Holocaust, the source is reliable beyond question. There are no ifs, ands, buts or even in betweens-- Woogie10w ( talk) 23:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Wallie you wrote quite another matter to having Polish children being bought up in German ways time out, kidnapping is a serious crime not a misdemeanor, think about your remark-- Woogie10w ( talk) 22:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
On Wikipedia the kidnapping of Polish children is included with the Holocaust read- History of children in the Holocaust-- Woogie10w ( talk) 19:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
This from the US Holocaust Memorial article CHILDREN DURING THE HOLOCAUST In their "search to retrieve 'Aryan blood,'" SS race experts ordered hundreds of children in occupied Poland and the occupied Soviet Union to be kidnapped and transferred to the Reich to be adopted by racially suitable German families. Although the basis for these decisions was "race-scientific," often blond hair, blue eyes, or fair skin was sufficient to merit the "opportunity" to be "Germanized." On the other hand, female Poles and Soviet civilians who had been deported to Germany for forced labor and who had had sexual relations with a German man -- often under duress -- resulting in pregnancy were forced to have abortions or to bear their children under conditions that would ensure the infant's death, if the "race experts" determined that the child would have insufficient German blood. [1]-- Woogie10w ( talk) 20:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Based on the discussions on this page I now realize why so many people have a poor opinion of Wikipedia. It is more than obvious that the many people contributing to this talk page have only a superficial understanding of the Holocaust. The level of the discussion is pathetic, sad to say the least. -- Woogie10w ( talk) 17:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
The USHMM pamphlet is dealing with the situation of Poles during the ocupation. It mentions both lapanki and forced Germanization of Polish children. Nowhere it says that they were part of the Holocaust, or that the situation of Poles in general should be described as Holocaust. The only link to the Holocaust in the pamphlet is that it is published by the USHMM. Skäpperöd ( talk) 05:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The book mentions the forced Germanization of Polish children, but does not say they were part of the Holocaust. Though the book is titled "Poland's Holocaust", it is subtitled "ethnic strife, collaboration with occupying forces and genocide in the Second Republic, 1918-1947", thus certainly the author does not say everything mentioned in his book ist to be understood as a part of the Holocaust. Skäpperöd ( talk) 05:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Woogie10w-its clear those German actions are part of Holocaust according to scholar sources-- Molobo ( talk) 19:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again Molobo for standing up to defend Poland-- Woogie10w ( talk) 22:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Open for two weeks, no discussion in second week, no consensus for inclusion. Skäpperöd ( talk) 09:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Amen, finally there are people on Wikipedia who are paying attention to what is going on in this article--As we say in Brooklyn, its not over until its over, extra innings-- Woogie10w ( talk) 23:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I attempted to simplify the introduction and make it more accessible with this edit. I assume there are many watching this article, so comment away. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 13:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Any more comments on this? Otherwise I will have a go at the article intro again. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 09:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
We need to amend the reference to 6 million jews as having perished in Europe during World War II as several studies have shown the figure to be inaccurate and not feasible based on various census actually taken just prior to World War II.
Can anyone suggest how we can edit the article to ensure the reference to 6 million jews is either removed or make it clear the figure is in dispute?
Frank Lee Speaking ( talk) 03:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Wo, time out, smells like Holocaust denial to me. Lets be clear Holocaust denial is not on our agenda here.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 23:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
If you have "proof" that 6 million Jews did not die, present it here and we will consider it. I have battled Srebrenica genocide deniers for years and I am always sceptical when people come and say they have "proof" that the figure is innacurate etc. What is your proof? Do you have any? Oh, I thought so. Bosniak ( talk) 20:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Scholarly consensus is about 6 million Jews, give or take a million, plus 5-12 million others, depending on the criteria used and the way of generating the numbers... is there alternate wording, or sources, you are proposing? I think we can all agree that 6 million Jews did not die in the camps (straw man), that the means to kill and dispose of 6 million in the camps (another straw man) did not exist, but the article does a pretty good job of framing the holocaust outside of those "in the camps" constraints. Since you referenced census data, do you have a source that says that less than 6 million Jews existed, or whatever you're trying to get across? Ronabop ( talk) 07:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we can end this thread now. -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 21:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
the introduction to this article is untrue and ridiculous. every arm of the German government was not involved with the Holocaust. Remember that they took over Europe and obviously some bigger things to worry about than Hitler's sick and twisted "final solution". CHECK THE SOURCES! JUST BECAUSE A VERY BIASED "HOLOCAUST SCHOLAR" SAYS SO DOESNT MAKE IT FACT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.90.26 ( talk) 06:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
"Soviet civilians" is used to link to Generalplan Ost - this should be changed to Slavs, since it covers many non soviet peoples. 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 06:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a minor correction to a photo that needs to be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AddQuality ( talk • contribs) 12:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
User:Skäpperöd wrote: or that the situation of Poles in general should be described as Holocaust.--
Skäpperöd, Do you propose deleting the entire section on the Poles? ----
Woogie10w (
talk)
19:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
In 1979 President Carter set up the Holocaust Commission and defined the Holocaust as the killing of 6 million Jews and 5 million others. The political-educational establishment in the US has defined the 5 million others as Poles, Soviet POW, Gays, the disabled and Roma. This is wrong in my opinion. The figure of 5 million others is comprised of the following ONE- 1.6 million deaths in Nazi camps in Germany as detailed by Eugon Kogon in The Theory and Practice of Hell TWO- 3.3 million Soviet POW deaths THREE-100,000 disabled killed in T-4. The Poles and Roma don’t belong on this page as separate groups they are already included in the total of 1.6 million deaths in Nazi camps in Germany, separate from the death camps in Poland.The figure of 1.6 million includes French, Germans, Czechs and Dutch along with the Poles.-- Woogie10w ( talk) 02:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
The Poles should also be considered holocaust victims because the Majority of Poles were Jews. Also, the Nazis treated everyone from eastern Europe as scum and subsequently killed them as well. It should be stated that the holocaust was the mass killing of Jews, and Eastern Europeans. (Konnow) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.246.93.243 ( talk) 17:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The proper source for this reference - 230. ^ Hancock, Ian. Jewish Responses to the Porajmos (The Romani Holocaust), Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, University of Minnesota. - should be http://chgs.umn.edu/histories/victims/romaSinti/jewishResponses.html Thanks.-- 96.42.47.21 ( talk) 07:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Since scholars do differ on what is the definition of the Holocaust, only Jews or all victims of Nazi genocide, perhaps a statement below the Victims-Non-Jews section to clarify this would be helpful and allow removing the troublesome "sometimes" statement which might easily be seen as diminishing the experience of non-Jewish victims. Something like this:
Non-Jews
Scholars differ on whether the definition of the Holocaust should also include the millions of other non-Jewish victims of Nazi genocide. [2]
Slavs
continue text as current
The point is thus made in NPOV fashion and without labeling these groups as apparent "sometimes" victims of the Nazis in the header. Markhh ( talk) 03:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
JEHOVAH WITNESS DEATHS found a more accurate number by the founder of the Watchtower Historical Archives-1490 deaths, not 2500-5000 http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a747700584&fulltext=713240928 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.59.35 ( talk) 18:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Given that the sidebar does include 'other victims' (without caveat), and, more importantly, that there is no umbrella article in Wikipedia for 'Nazi genocide' - that just redirects to the Holocast page - would it not be a little less offensive to the millions of non-Jews who died to be recognised as fellow human beings who suffered without insulting words like 'other' tacked on to the heading? Though clearly far more Jews suffered and the Nazis were far more dedicated to destroying the Jewish people, I am sure no-one wants to paint other murders as any less murderous. Wouldn't it be better for either all groups to be put together in the sidebar, or, since the word 'Holocaust' does have Jewish religious connotations, at least that a more evenly discussed 'Nazi genocide' page be set up? I'm sure this has already been discussed at great length, but nothing seems to have been done - and of course, due to the large number of potential vandals associated with such a potential topic, it is impossible to make any alterations this end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.111.28 ( talk) 12:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Here is a nice report on the oldest male surviver who is a JW. Wonder if this could go in the section. [23]
I edited the article to read "genocide....of Jews and others" but was reverted. Hadn't realised this had already been covered on talk page. I always thought the Shoah included the gypsies, homosexuals, and others who were murdered.
Beganlocal (
talk)
23:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
This article has changed. Gay men are now at the bottom of the page and they are "sometimes" Holocaust victims. They were Holocaust victims, this page is homophobic-- 170.170.59.138 ( talk) 15:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Hitler was a gay. So how can he order to kill gays? [24] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.43.152 ( talk) 16:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
The Holocaust was the extermination of the Jews and other people whom Hitler considered inferior. It took place from 1933 to 1945. Millions of people were murdered, half of them being Jews. When Hitler took over control of Germany, everything changed. Hitler was very against the Jews.Hitler , in an attempt to establish the pure Aryan race, decided that all mentally ill, gypsies, non supporters of Nazism, and Jews were to be eliminated from the German population.” His followers, who were the soldiers in the camps, were called Nazis. They did all killing that Hitler wanted done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scuduwump ( talk • contribs) 23:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Billymuscles ( talk) 17:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: I DO know the holocaust really happened. I think the many standing concentration camps and photos of the atrocities that went on within them are proof enough of their existence.
That said, there is a vocal movement stating that it didn't really happen, and I'm wondering where I could find an objective (not "because they're idiots" or "because they're in denial") voice that explains their viewpoints so I can understand *why* people think this.
thanks.
74.47.147.68 ( talk) 13:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
People who deny the Holocaust should be directed to
Oskar_Gröning of the Schutzstaffel
Billymuscles (
talk)
17:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
And you want to compare the Croat-Serb (notice the lack of German interest in this) ethnic conflict to Shoah? It's ridicalous. -- Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji ( talk) 00:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, and about this "The USHMM reports between 56,000 and 97,000 persons were killed at the Jasenovac concentration camp[73][74] However, Yad Vashem reports 600,000 deaths at Jasenovac.[75]" Guys, guys. They just relied what the Yugoslav (Serb dominated, Belgrade-based) government told them! It's like saying that "however" Polish communists said 4 million people died at Auschwitz. It's just not serious. -- Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji ( talk) 00:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Btw, only Auschwitz (1.1 million or so) and Treblinka (850,000) had more than 600,000 victims. If you think a bunch of Croat fascists in their ramshack camp would beat the professional Germans and their industrial killing in effeciency, I have no further questions. -- Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji ( talk) 00:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and of course the Croats killed many thousands of Jews and Gypsies - THIS was German supported. I hope you can see the difference. -- Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji ( talk) 00:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, the Germans were (directly) involved in hundreds of wholesale village massacres in Belarus and in Ukraine, yet we classify it as simply "German war crimes" here (on Wikipedia), as Generalplan Ost was about something more and this was ad-hoc while trying to eradicte the partisan threat. -- Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji ( talk) 08:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
This is now 187 kb long, and very hard to load. It needs to be cut back. Please don't add any more. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Comments appreciated here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
We should add a quote. like Eisenhower's: "Boys, now you know why we're fighting." -- LandonJaeger ( talk) 02:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how it can be edited but the side bar for the Holocaust - has a glaring mistake:
Concentration camps were not death camps and death camps were not Arbeitslager. However the side bar makes no distinction....
Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka and Majdanek (initially founded as a concentration camp but a death camp for most of its operation) should have their own section: Extermination Camps (or Centers)
Likewise Mittelbau-Dora and Ebensee concentration camp should be included but noted as work camps.
I think it would remove the ambiguity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.127.39 ( talk) 11:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the "Selection" image appears twice in the article? Crum375 ( talk) 23:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
There appear to be three definitions of 'holocaust':
Now I don't really care very much which of the three this article is about, but it should make up its mind. Ideally, there should be a separate article for each. (Which would also be a partial solution to the article being too long.) I don't know if there is enough material for the first definition, although that could contain the (main) discussion about what the word means. But there certainly is for the last two definitions. Also note that
Holocaust victims is about the second definition, whereas this article is mostly (but not exclusively!) about the third definition, which adds to the confusion. Actually, that article might be a good starting point for an article in the second definition.
This will lead to the question what the three articles should be called, but that is secondary to which articles there should be. Not being a native English speaker, I don't have the vocabulary in my head, so I'll leave that to others.
Finally ,there is the question of how this should be presented. Should 'holocaust' be a disambiguation page or should it start with one of the three proposed articles? However, that is also secondary to the main question which articles there should be.
DirkvdM (
talk)
07:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)