Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Hayden5650

Anyone else who feels that Hayden5650 should get another blocking, because of persistent disruptive edits (and I mean not only here with expressions like "euthanasia of Jews", but also in many other articles). He just came back from another block (more info at User talk:Hayden5650 and User_talk:125.237.116.59), but it seems he did not corrected the demeanour. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 09:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I notice I am not the only person to have reverted your disruptive edits. Roma are a mixed race people, if you don't agree then edit elsewhere. Better yet lets hold a vote and gain some consensus --Hayden5650 11:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, I was blocked as a result of changing the term 'female actor' to 'actress' in several articles. There is so much PC drivel on here. --Hayden5650 11:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This user is well known for disrupting behavior. Personally, I gave him an initial advice, then I made a presentation of who this user is. However, the verbal violence increased (just to mention Romani issues). Now he is following me in my edits, opposing me, in all kind of fields he has no knowledge about. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 12:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Your messages, Desiphral, are no more than personal attacks disguised as fact. Yes, I have been blocked before, on a completely unrelated matter. Yes, I do edit articles regarding National Socialism and its application, as my knowledge of it is extensive. An yes I edit the Roma/Gypsy articles, because as an impartial wikipedian, I can see generations of race mixing is manifested in you as a self hatred and a desire to ignore and hide the past of your people. Regarding the Zyklon B comment I made, I know I shouldn't have made it, but when a Gypsy (MadeinFinland) threatened me with a Jew, I just couldn't help myself. My talkpage, I'll admit, isn't much of a resumé, but that is what I expect from editing such articles, as there are so many nansypansy leftwing liberals on here, they are bound to kick up a fuss when one dares bring neutrality to an article. --Hayden5650 12:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Now this issue may be discussed also at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#New_block_for_Hayden5650. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 14:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't flatter yourself Hayden5650, you were blocked for your personal attacks and vandalism to the Homosexuality article. I, as any Wikipedian would think that an image of homosexuals brutally executed at the top of the Homosexuality article seems sick enough to block you indefinitely so there is no need for you filibuster on how bureaucratic we are.

Celtic Emperor 21:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame that people need reminding, but article talk pages are for discussing edits to an article. Discussing the behaviour of an editor needs to go somewhere else. Thank you. --Merbabu 06:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

So what's y'alls real problem with the "Resistance" section?

Oh joy, I'm being tag teamed again; such a joy to be shoved towards the electric fence over and over every week. So what's the real problem with this small section in the article? SlimVirgin claimed it was article length, but Moshe just reverted my last edit anyway, removing the section and making the article longer. -- Kendrick7^talk 13:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

The slaughter was at its "worst" isn't NPOV? [1] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not only not NPOV (good, better, best, worse, worst are all intrinsically value judgments, not objective facts) - it's confusing. Does the slaughter being "at its worst" mean it was the least or most successful? If we say, for example, "so-and-so baseball player, at his worst, had a 0.200 batting average" it means at the low point of success, right? The us in this article appears to perhaps be the opposite? It's not only POV, but a reader may interpret the opposite from the intent depending on his POV, or his perception of the use of "worst".

And for that matter "slaughter" is probably a pejorative label in this use, as is "victim". I'm looking everywhere I can think of wikipedia for this sort of bias. It is in violation of the intent of WP:NPOV and WP:V, in that value judgments are not facts and are not verifiable unless offered as the cited opinion of some person (and expressed as such). Fourdee 05:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think 'worst' is a perfectly acceptable term for a disaster. Similarly a disaster has victims. Trying to use other terms here would not be NPOV - it would sound unnatural, like 'wo-person' for woman. Crum375 05:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Who's to say it's a disaster? The SS didn't seem to view it as a disaster. "worst", "disaster", "slaughter" all imply that the writer of the article feels the events were wrongful - they have a bias. A "natural disaster" doesn't entail an opposing point of view so that's more an artifact of language than an NPOV issue - we don't usually assume that nature has a point of view, but there may be a POV argument there as well (some might say "natural disasters" are good for humanity, cull the weak, curtail overpopulation, whatever - the badness is simply not a fact). I'm not concerned at this time with bias in descriptions of natural disasters or diseases, rather in descriptions of wars and killings. A British author might call an American revolutionary a "traitor" or "murderer" and it is no more factual than to say he is a "hero" or "patriot". No value judgment should ever be stated in the voice of the wikipedia article writer as a fact; they should be offered as a cited published opinion. "According to so-and-so, these were brutal murders." Even putting a citation at the end of a sentence-which-states-a-value-judgment is not sufficient to make it clear that it is not the opinion of the writer, something to the effect of "According to" or quotation marks is necessary. Fourdee 06:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"So-and-so baseball player, at his worst, had a 0.200 batting average" refers to the least good scenario in terms of X's batting averages, and the "worst slaughter" refers to the least good scenario in terms of slaughter. With batting averages, the higher the better. With slaughters, the lower the better, for everyone bar the slaughterers. To pretend otherwise is what Wittgenstein called "language gone on holiday." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"least good" is your opinion, it is never a fact, I have no idea how or why you would think otherwise. To the people playing against (rooting against, etc.) this baseball player, his higher performance is "bad", and generally "at his worst" would be judged with reference to the subject's goals or intents. "Slaughter" is a value judgment, a pejorative label for killing. For every killing (especially one like the holocaust) there are some people who think it is wrong and some people who think it is right. The relative proportions of supporters and opponents is irrelevant in determining a fact, as they are both mere value judgments, not facts. The word-game here is the bias you want included in the article. "Worst" for the SS is not "worst" for the people being killed. "Worst" is not a fact. "Wrongess" and "badness" are not facts. Fourdee 06:11, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's also not true that what you're calling value judgments aren't facts (actual states of affairs). Sometimes they are. "It's a dreadful shame that this newborn baby was tossed into the gutter by her mother minutes after the birth." It's what you would call a value judgment. It's also what most people would say was a fact (as well as a value judgment) even if they didn't use those terms. That throwing newborn babies into gutters is (ceteris paribus) not a good thing is a description of the world as it actually is, and that's what facts are. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That's patently false. Who created the "fact" of the goodness or badness of throwing babies in gutters? Even if infanticide had been considered wrong in most societies in most situations in most times, it is no sort of fact. Obviously that bias fails the tests of both WP:NPOV and WP:V.

Moreover: when is it you consider "wrongess" a fact and when is it an opinion? Was the Hiroshima bombing wrong? Were the Crusades wrong? Which side is "wrong" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Is killing in self-defense wrong or right? Is Communism wrong or right? Is Monarchy wrong or right? The most you can say about any of these is some of them show a pretty equal split in opinion and others show a more dominant value-judgment (today). It is factual to report that value-judgment as a citation of the opinion of some person(s), but the ascribed value itself is simply not a fact. You seem familiar with philosophy, surely you are aware of the distinction drawn between objective and subjective? Whether or not you agree that those characterizations of qualities are accurate, that is the assumption WP:NPOV and WP:V operate under. Fourdee 06:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourdee -- you are missing the point; NPOV isn't about not presenting a POV, it's about representing all POVs equally. If you can find a source that doesn't claim the slaughter in Central and Eastern Europe wasn't the worst, or suggests the worst of it was somewhere else, then you'd have an argument. NPOV doesn't mean wikipedia can't present a consensus historical view of matters. The judgment of history here is very definitive; I don't think history have taken definitive sides on anything else you list, the way it has here. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourdee, philosophers have been wrestling with these issues for thousands of years, and some of the best academic minds in the world currently devote themselves to it. And yet you feel you're in a position to say "That's patently false." That, in itself, should suggest a problem to you.

The point for our purposes is that we rely on reliable sources. You won't find any who say that the mass killing during the Holocaust was anything but a terrible thing. Therefore, bad, worse, and worst are words it's fine for us to use. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not what WP:NPOV says. Under NPOV, articles are to be phrased in a neutral voice. You are avoiding the clear directive about some statements which are "obviously values" - i.e. not facts, which these statements fall under. Many different examples are given and this is clearly similar to them. And in this case, there are many "credible sources" (the Nazis, Nazi supporters, etc.) who do not believe the Holocaust was wrong. But that's not really important. These usages should be cited as "according to so-and-so" or phrased neutrally. There is no question that claiming the holocaust was wrong is a bias and is contrary to NPOV, whatever you may feel is the relative prevalence of that belief. The use has been challenged and must be cited or changed. Easiest thing to do is make it neutral. A value-judgment is not a "neutral point of view". Fourdee 21:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake. While there may be a few Nazis and Neo-Nazis who actively defend the Holocaust, they are few indeed. Most deny it happened or argue that it was a perversion of "true" Nazism. Even Goering and Rosenberg distanced themselves from it! In any case "worst" does not even necessarily imply a moral judgement, since we might refer to the worst casualties of many military actions or natural disasters without making judgments. Paul B 10:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:NPOV, WP:V, and the other core policies. Fourdee 10:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop playing silly games. Paul B 11:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, WP:NPOV is an absolutely mandatory policy. "Worst" cannot be a fact. Fourdee 14:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, WP:NPOV is a mandatory policy, which is why it is being observed here. Now please stop playing silly games. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Applicability of the term Holocaust

The current version states:

"The Holocaust...is the term generally used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews...Other groups were persecuted and killed by the regime...Many scholars do not include these groups in the definition of the Holocaust, defining it as the genocide of the Jews,[4] or what the Nazis called the 'Final Solution of the Jewish Question.'"

If any change is made to it, it has to be self consistent. To say "scholars disagree", leaving the parts "generally used" and "defining it as the genocide of the Jews", is (facts and issues aside) inconsistent and logically broken. Crum375 20:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

All those characterizations are contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:V which require that characterizations such as "many" or "most" or "generally" be clearly cited, qualified, and quantified if possible. Fourdee 21:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You're correct Crum375, my edit did leave it in a confusing state. But even several of the web-available sources under [4] seem to hedge their bets, as it were, and are themselves self-contradictory, and one scholar there mocks the issue as a sort of "victimization Olympics." But Fourdee is correct too, "many" here is a clear WP:AWW problem. I'm open to suggestions? -- Kendrick7^talk 21:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that topic and the specific verbiage were debated at some length, and the wording we have is a balanced compromise version. Crum375 22:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's clearly incorrect from the sources given, and it's using weasel words. I'll try to come up with something. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I see people are just reverted without discussion. I'm still open to a version of this sentence without weasel words. I'll just add a disputed tag until this is settled. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

How many references are needed to justify "many"? Or can it never be used? I count 12 references in the footnote and could add Jäckel and Rohwer, Fleming and Goldhagen (controversial, but for other reasons). In my reading only the Britannica is incorrect in that it refers on the one hand to the "millions of others" yet on the other hand talks about the "final solution of the Jewish question" which did not include the millions of others. You could write "some important holocaust scholars"? You could count the number of people named in the references, i.e. "4 holocaust scholars" but that would be misleading since clearly there are more who would use the definition. (see for example historian Stephen Welsh's [2]). Or maybe "at least 5 holocaust scholars" but that seems just a little too precious. I would not be against waltzing with the weasel. Most of what I have been reading defines holocaust as the "final solution...". Joel Mc 10:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is WP:OR. We're not allowed to just pick a set of references out of a hat and make weasel-worded conclusions; that's the very principle behind WP:AWW. This given ref [3] also contradicts the statement, as it cites a whole list of scholars who would or would not include Romanis, but our citation just picks one of these which supports the "not" view. What's the problem with saying scholars disagree here? -- Kendrick7^talk 16:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No, when you have many scholars saying the same thing, then it's not OR to state "many scholars say xyz". In any event, I've now provided a sources that explicitly states that "many scholars" restrict it to Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Kendrick, the source explicitly states Many scholars. Please desist from further WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Jayjg. It's WP:AWW -- if you remove the weasel word "many" it becomes a POV statement. Obviously, there are any number of scholars who do include these groups. Got a train to catch; no time to quote WP:AWW back to you, but it's like the first paragraph.... -- Kendrick7^talk 01:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The source explicitly says many scholars. It's not "weasel words" when the source explicitly says it. And there shouldn't be any need to quote WP:POINT to you, but, sadly, it seems there is. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Defamation and libel

As some people characterized as having "participated in mass murder" were not charged with, or convicted, accused or even plausibly guilty of a war crime or murder, this sort of wording is defamatory and potentially libelous of some living persons. This is above an beyond the fact of a biased POV.

From Wikipedia:

"In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation."

This is contrary to numerous Wikipedia policies and may be removed ad infinitum.

Fourdee 21:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourdee, you just crossed the line into disruption. The material here is based on reliable published sources. Please do not remove any of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

Fourdee, your objection makes no sense. Clearly, mass murder was committed by individuals that belonged to the units described here. --Leifern 01:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's impossible to state value-judgments as facts. Please provide citation for members of every branch of the bureaucracy being convicted of mass murder, that would be a start. Even then this should be phrased as "According to so-and-so, every branch..." or "Some members of every branch of the bureaucracy we convicted of war crimes or mass murder[1]" or something factual. Biased characterizations appear to be defamatory or non-factual to me. Source also appears no less biased than any holocaust revisionist. Berenbaum, Michael. The World Must Know, United States Holcaust Museum, 2006, p. 103. Patently biased sources making pejorative statements should not be stated as fact without some attribution and/or balance. Also please provide quote of this citation so we can see what precisely he says. A biased source using a pejorative label like slaughter, murder, atrocity, etc. etc. must be balanced with other points of view and cannot be stated as a bald fact (if these sources even used these terms, it's difficult for me to verify - see WP:V) Would you prefer I introduce other points of view at each of these points, or merely that we phrase these things neutrally? I think the latter would be less offensive. Fourdee 10:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourdee, "murder" is a precise legal term that refers to the deliberate and unlawful killing of people, which is without question what happened here. "Slaughter" is a term used widely by hundreds if not thousands of recognized historians. Libel has no place here, as it is recognized that all the individuals named were directly involved in the murder. I don't know what kind of balance you're talking about here - this article describes facts. --Leifern 11:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The individuals named are "all branches of the bureaucracy" which does not seem to be verifiable. I am asking to see the evidence for that, specifically. (see WP:V) Was the precise legal charactization "war crimes" or "murder" or "extermination" or all three, and it is applied to all the killings and deaths described in this article by a court of law? I am not able to verify these sources as I don't have the books, we don't have a quote of what the sources said, and they have been paraphrased. I am calling into question the paraphrasings, their foundation in fact, the reliability of the sources, and the balance of the article. Article also does not mention other points of view, including defenses given at trials, Nazi propaganda and positions, etc. If you guys are going to hem and haw and insist that the bias remain I will have to spend more energy on this than it's worth to me in terms of applying counter-citations, but I am intent on seeing this and all important articles phrased neutrally. I'm sure there are a lot of historians who call the holocaust "horrible" or "disturbing" or "inhumane" or any of infinite pejorative that are their perogative to use, but which violate WP:NPOV when stated as fact - these are "very obviously values". Also, SlimVirgin, it is not "assuming good faith" to label someone's actions as disruptive. It's not my intent to disrupt this article, phrase any particuar POV (I can see both sides of it), or prevent any cited POV from being expressed. My agenda here is a only strict enforcement of neutrality and I think this is a good article to make an example of. Fourdee 13:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why your activism supports any kind of neutrality or verifiability when you simply dismiss the overwhelming and near-unanimous consensus of all historians in their assessment of the Holocaust. This is not one of those issues that is at the center of any kind of meaningful controversy, but for good measure Wikipedia includes articles related to Holocaust denial. If terms such as "inhumane," "horrible," or "disturbing" are to have any precise meaning at all, they can safely be applied here. --Leifern 14:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

None of "inhumane", "horrible" or "disturbing" are factual qualities of an event (although being disturbing to some person or persons might be a verifiable fact - "to most people" isn't considered appropriate terminology for wikipedia though). I am honestly shocked that there is any confusion about this. You might as just put in big bold letters at the top of the article The Evil, Repugnant, Murderous Extermination of Jews by the Atrocious Nation of Germany. This is obviously not the policy indicated in WP:NPOV and neutrality is not negotiable. I really am concerned to see so many people say "well this is a case where my values are right and people who disagree are just wrong." Frankly, it's just as frightening as the subject of this article. Fourdee 15:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Fourdee, here is your mistake. You seem to be assuming that Wikipedia is making moral or value judgments. You are correct that it may not, but it is not doing so. All we are doing is citing language or views used by the overwhelming majority of the reliable published sources. To use any other language, like "eradication project", will violate WP:OR and or WP:UNDUE. So please try to focus on what the vast majority of the published sources are saying, not on trying to come up with 'neutral' value judgments. Crum375 15:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the examples below do not appear to be properly cited to me (they are either questionably paraphrased or simply not citations), nor does the article seem to offer any balance at all. And anyway, who is "reliable" in making a value-judgment? Nobody's opinion of value has any more basis than any other. I believe you (several people) are taking advatange in a weakness of the phrasing of parts of WP:NPOV to avoid its clear intent (which is explicitly stated several times) - that wikipedia articles, in the voice of the editor, take no side, merely offer facts and cited opinions. Values are never facts, no matter how widely they are shared. It is never a neutral point of view to describe something as (or imply that it is) factually morally wrong. Since these statements are not direct quotes, and are not attributed as the value ascribed by some person, they either need to be completely removed, or phrased neutrally. Values are not facts. Wikipedia articles state facts. Values must be attributed. This is the clear meaning of WP:NPOV. We can haggle over which terms would be factual and neutral but the neutral statement of facts is not an option is and not mitigated by any number of "reliable" sources.

Stating that something is wrong is not a fact! This is obviously the "some propositions are very obviously values" mentioned in WP:NPOV and very closely matches the examples given.Fourdee 16:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You say "Values are not facts. Wikipedia articles state facts". I partially agree. For us a 'fact' is any material that was reliably published. So it could be someone calling the Holocaust "eradication project", if we could find it, properly cited. Or it could be calling Germany a "genocidal nation", if we can cite it. Our job here is to present to our readers a fair and representative summary of what was published by reliable sources, properly balanced according to prevalence. So you need to look at the entirety of our sources, and then decide if our summary properly reflects that collection. Crum375 16:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that viewing the the entirety of the sources to analyze or make any particular statements would be synthesis and original research. My questions for the below list are 1) are they citations at all (at least one is clearly not supported by the map shown as the citation) 2) if they are paraphrased, are the paraphrases accurate or do they involve a synthesis or change in terms and 3) are they balanced with any substantial opposing points of view - in this case, statements made at the trials of the perpetrators would seem pretty significant for starters. Perhaps I was out of line in offering alternate phrasings rather than just inserting ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  where I had questions and raising the issue here, which I did under the assumption that these were not actual citations. I may have jumped the gun a bit in my excitment to aggressively apply WP:NPOV and I apologize if I did as I know this is a sensitive article, but it's a great one to apply the strictest tests to and make a model of. I think it's very important to remove the systemic, social, political etc. biases from wikipedia as much as possible; neutrality is a fantastic policy to have and is just as valuable as the collaborative process. Fourdee 16:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You say "viewing the entirety of the sources to analyze or make any particular statements would be synthesis and original research". I must respectfully and strongly disagree. This is exactly our mission here as editors, as long as we summarize our published sources in a balanced way. 'Synthesis' is not the summarizing of existing sources - it is the creation or advancing of new conclusions based on sources that don't make such conclusions themselves, and we don't reach any novel conclusions here. 'OR' is when we create or advance a new conclusion not based on the published sources, and we don't do that either. So again, what we do is take the published sources we have and present them in a balanced and neutral fashion. Crum375 16:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

How is anyone supposed to verify a claim if it is not supported by the next following citation? Combining information from multiple sources is explicitly listed as "synthesis". Here are some relevant policies:

• All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source,[...] and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. - If the sources for the terms I challenged are not the immediately following citations, what are they?
• Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. - it is not valid to claim consensus without a citation documenting that consensus.
• Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. - combining sources is not valid. A citation can only be of one source.

Respectfully, I think most of what you are claiming is clearly contrary to these policies and others. Fourdee 17:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You have misunderstood the policies. Summarizing what a number of sources say is not original research; only synthesizing the material to draw novel conclusions would be so. None of what you have challenged so far appears to violate any policy whatsoever, in particular WP:BLP. The only thing being violated here so far is WP:POINT, by you. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Contested or missing citations

We are dealing with several citations and phrasings which I am contesting:

• "The persecution and genocide were accomplished in stages." - does not appear to be cited at all, only citation in paragraph is in quotes at end and appears unrelated.

• "Every arm of Germany's bureaucracy was involved in the logistics of the mass murder, turning the country into what one Holocaust scholar has called "a genocidal nation."" - What's the citation for "every arm" and "mass murder" as they don't appear to be directly from the quoted scholar, if they are from him, what are the facts he stated which have been paraphrased? If "genocidal nation" isn't defamatory, cited or not, I don't know what would be. Might as well cite "germans are murderers" or "jews are usurers" - I'm sure some "scholar" has said as much. Anyway, the rest doesn't appear to be cited, or has been questionably paraphrased.

• "The slaughter was systematically conducted in virtually all areas of Nazi-occupied territory in what are now 35 separate European countries." - looking at this cited map, it makes no mention of "slaughter" or "systematically" - personally I'm not worried about "systematically" since that is probably cited elsewhere, but what is the basis for this term "slaughter"? It's not directly cited here at all.

• "It was at its worst in Central and Eastern Europe, which had more than seven million Jews in 1939." - phrasing is ambiguous (worst meaning most or least successful?), "worst" is "very obviously a value", appears to be loosely paraphrased or not cited.

There seems to be a lot of paraphrasing going on, and a practice of tossing a citation at the end of a piece of original research and claiming it to be cited when in the one case I was able to check the source it made no mention of anything which was supposedly cited. At least three, probably all of these statements appear to fail WP:V alone and are, like any uncited statement, subject to be removed at any time. They also fail the "very obviously a value" standard of WP:NPOV and offer no balance. I am questioning all of these citations and asking to see the actual text from which they are taken and the justifications for the particular paraphrasings. I'm not convinced any of these are even citations of the sources listed. Fourdee 13:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Defamation

Some editors are making the rather bizarre claim that to accuse Nazi authorities and groups of the Holocaust constitutes defamation. Since defamation only relates to false allegations, this doesn't apply. --Leifern 15:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The claims in question are "genocidal nation" (applied to all of Germany, not just the government, not just the Nazis, not just the SS, not just the convicted direct perpetrators) and "murder" which on a quick review of the trial transcripts is not how the killings were legally described - extermination seems to be the term used. Both of those appear to be false "allegations" at this point. See for yourself in the Eichmann transcripts [4] - the charges do not specify "muder", they say "extermination", "deaths of", etc. The "genocidal nation" is at least attributed to someone but is so clearly defamatory, not scholarly, not factual, and generally biased that it needs to be balanced with something and it is questionable why it is included at all. Fourdee 15:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you somehow think "murder" is less NPOV than "extermination"? "Extermination" imputes a motive to the killings far nastier than mere murder. "Genocidal nation" is actually quite factual: take a nation and brainwash it using Nazi tactics for a decade, and guess what -- it works. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, whatever - "extermination" is the term used in the legal documents (as well as "killings of", "deaths of" that sort of thing but not "murder"), and in that light should be used in all cases instead of "murder". I do think "murder" is more pejorative than "extermination" but that's not as important as which legal terms were used, which is itself just a fact. And if the whole nation of Germany carried out the "genocide" why were only a handful of people even tried for it, and some acquitted? If there is no legal conviction, how is this purported crime-of-a-nation a fact? Who's to say? At the least we need to offer the other side of it, the defenses and justifications offered by the people who did it, and any evidence that participation and/or knowledge may not have been universal as implied by the above quote. Fourdee 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The nation of Germany committed the crimes. That individual citizens of the nation of Germany did not commit the crimes is simply irrelevant; nobody's saying "every German was a mass murderer". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. The claim that every segment of the government participated needs to be verified, and there are probably some differing points of view on that. We still haven't addressed whether all of the contested phrasings above are actual citations (one is definitely not a citation), and if they are properly paraphrased.Fourdee 16:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that neither Berenbaum nor Friedländer have been read very carefully. It is a fact that the Holocaust expert Michael Berenbaum wrote the Germany became "a genocidal nation" which he explains with evidence that "every arm" of the bureaucracy was involved. Friedländer finds no social institution which resisted by declaring its solidarity with Jews. If there are other sides to that, then of course they should be added. However, we may have to wait a long time for that to happen...Joel Mc 17:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No idea what the relevance of the "resisting" or "solidarity" is. I haven't resisted on behalf of or declared solidarity with a great many people who have been killed in my country or by my government, neither have the overwhelming majority of us. As to whether "every arm" of the bureaucracy was involved in the "mass murder" (which is apparently not precisely what the people who were prosecuted were charged with), since you apparently have these books on hand, can you please help clarify with some actual quotes the questions about how the paraphrase was constructed? It's pretty hard to believe there are no opposing characterizations but for the moment lets just work with the sources you have and I'll find some later if we can't reach a resolution just through application of WP:V and WP:NPOV to these sources. Fourdee 18:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I expect that further reading on the subject of the holocaust will clarify the relevance of "resisiting" and "solidarity". An example can be found at Le Chambon-sur-Lignon. However the point is that two holocaust researchers have made statements based upon their research. Doesn't seem to be a POV issue. Of course those statements can be questioned by offering criticism of their research including alternative evidence. But that is the job of the critic not me. Joel Mc 05:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV policy is pretty cut and dry

Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where we are not sure if we should take a particular dispute seriously; but there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles were the greatest band in history is a value or opinion. That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.

I think that policy is very clear. Anything which isnt directly quoted or attributed cannot contain an opinion (a value is the most clear and absolute variety of opinion). The examples I've contested above do not seem clearly attributed to me. They are opinions which are being asserted in the voice of the editor. I think to treat a value as a fact is to ignore the clear intent of the NPOV policy - a value is always an opinion, never a fact. I really don't want to antagonize the regular editors of this article but I would like to make it a test case for what I believe is the proper application of the NPOV policy. Fourdee 16:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Also these other relevant policies came up above in discussion:

All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source,[...] and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material.

Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources.

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C.

Note sure exactly how these all apply to each situation, but they are what we have to work with. Fourdee 17:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourdee, by that standard everything written is a matter of opinion. How can you be sure that Norway is a monarchy, after all? That it's painful to die from cancer? Or that the earth is round? All we have is the opinion of the vast majority of scholars. Hundreds if not thousands of Nazis were prosecuted and convicted of murder, for example Amon Göth. There is no question murder was committed at such a scale that slaughter is an apt term. Unless you think that the bare facts - millions of non-combatants murdered in cold blood for no legitimate reason - there can be no disputing that the terms are accurate and factual. --Leifern 02:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The World Is Flat -- source: Thomas L. Friedman. *Dan T.* 15:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Murdered" (absent a specific conviction), "cold blood", "legitimate reason" are not facts by any definition and I am really unsure why you think they are. What is the factual basis for legitimate reasons to kill people? The bible? Some particular law? "Legitimate" necessarily doesn't mean "legal according to 'international' law" it's a often value judgment, it's a moral value, and moral values are no sort of facts. If these actions were legal according to the laws of the government under which they occurred, how is "not legitimate" a fact. At any rate I am challenging these statements and they do not seem to be properly cited. (revised) Fourdee 15:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourdee, you are still hung up on value judgments and morality, as if WP is here to act as judge of history, which it clearly is not. Our role is to summarize the widely prevailing views about our topics, as reported by reliable published sources. The term "mass murder", for example, is used by a vast number of reliable sources, and conversely, there isn't any significant reliable source that argues against it. Therefore, using it is correct per WP:NPOV and WP:V. If we were to use your own invented terms, like "eradication project", we'd be violating WP:NOR, and WP:UNDUE. Crum375 16:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok I see what you are saying on one hand (although what you will accept as a "reliable source" may be so narrowly drawn as to preclude any other points of view). I still dispute that any value no matter how widely accepted can under any concept of neutral phrasing be stated as fact. If the overwhelming majority of people think that some superstar is beautiful, is it really a fact that she is beautiful? Isn't the fact that she is generally considered beautiful? (oops bad example, there might be an argument for objective beauty there... :-) ...)

At any rate, to combine citations from different sources (one says the genocide is mass murder, another says the genocide was also X, therefore the mass murder is also X) is defintely synthesis and OR. It's not really feasible to mix sources, the terms or charcaterizations used by one source should be used only for the citations of that source. Some of these sources don't offer page numbers, and the citation of the map stated things the map didnt state at all (synthesis and OR apparently) - I have removed the statements purportedly based on the map, and need a page number for the following citation which uses the term "at its worst". If "at its worst" is just a paraphrase then the paraphrase is completely subject to debate. I will attempt to obtain these books since no one else seems to have them or they are unwilling to provide the actual text. And my counter citation to any uncited or general use of "murder" (which should be quoted or clearly attributed to a particular author) is going to be the Eichmann trial where he was charged with "extermination" not "murder". It is not correct to create your own concept of "consensus" as far as what terms should be used in a paraphrase or for something that is not directly attributed & cited - that is OR. Fourdee 16:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You have mistaken "synonym" for "synthesis". "Mass murder" and "extermination" are the same thing in this context, and the Holocaust did indeed involve "mass murder", on an industrial scale never before seen. Attempts to change this phrase are simply tendentious. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Mass murder" is not a synonym for "extermination". Paraphrasing with that term is probably one of: synthesis, original research, or POV. You may believe that "extermination" in this case involves or implies "mass murder", you may have citations to that effect, but unless a given author used that term, it is synthesis or POV to introduce it to a paraphrase of his citation. Given that immediately below "killing process" is used instead of "mass murder" it seems like this is a case of paraphrasing with a non-synonym. "mass murder" is not a synonym for "killing process" by any stretch, and to believe that one entails the other is a case of synthesis or original research. Fourdee 17:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Also I notice you restored the sentence that is cited by a map which does not describe any statement made in that sentence at all. Why on earth would you do that? Talk about "tendentious". Fourdee 17:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for philosophical musings the level of which my 8-year old easily has surpassed. Words have more or less precise meaning based on certain criteria. All the terms you are quibbling about apply overwhelmingly to this historical event. When you would have distort the meaning of these words beyond all recognition to come up with an opposing view to the overwhelming concensus, you have lost the argument. Everyone has realized it but you. --Leifern 23:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Explain in what sense "mass murder" is not a synonym for "extermination", when it comes to human beings. The very definition of the Holocaust is "mass murder". The mass murder of European Jews by the Nazis during World War II. Also, the map lists 35 countries which had concentration camps, and people died on a mass scale in all of them. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If "mass murder" and "extermination" are synonyms (obviously not the case), how on earth can it be "tendentious" for my to replace one with the other??? They mean the same thing, according to you! Apparently all of "killing process" (used below regarding same citation), "mass murder" and "extermination" are synonyms (LOL) and might be substituted for one another without any change in meaning.

• "Mass murder" does not have the same definition as "extermination" (check your dictionary). That a particular extermination entails mass murder is a conclusion drawn. If such a conclusion is drawn by a different source than the one cited, it can't be mixed with his statements, that is synthesis. For example an army could exterminate another army without anyone insinuating that it was murder. Obviously these terms have somewhat different connotations. Extermination per se does not imply wrongness.

• The map does not describe "slaughter", "virtually all", it does not depict 35 countries, it does not depict which countries are occupied by the nazis, it does not depict the state of the borders of those countries during world war II. In fact, the map makes no statements at all and drawing conclusions from a map or combining with other sources is the most blatant case of improper citation and synthesis that there could be. I do not see any possible basis for restoring this text as currently cited.

Did you notice that on a heavily watched article the changes I made were not reverted for some time? Fourdee 18:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourdee, these changes are not helpful. The words "mass murder," "mass killing," "extermination," and "slaughter" are used interchangeably by scholarly sources when discussing the Holocaust. No one but you has ever called it an "eradication project." Please read NPOV in conjunction with V and NOR. As the policies say, the three of them work together and shouldn't be interpreted separately from one enother. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If they are interchangable terms there is zero reason to fight over them. The map is still not a citation for the other claims. Fourdee 18:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Then please leave them alone. Which other claims do you want a citation for? Ask for them here and I will find them for you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You guys are totally out of line. The map is no kind of citation for the sentence before it yet you keep restoring it. Do you even look at what you are reverting when you do it? Fourdee 18:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely am not going to leave them alone because "mass murder" is not a synonym for extermination. You're the one saying it is so you have no basis for your restoration. I don't say it is. Fourdee 18:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Mass murder" is just one of a number of terms frequently used to describe it; it's as good as any, and better than "extermination", as the victims were people who were murdered, not cockroaches that were "exterminated". The term is sourced, and will be staying, so move on. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That's right, you know very well it's not a synonym, and despite the fact that the technical, legal term was "extermination" you and other biased sources want the term "mass murder" used because of its connotations. At the least the indictment of Eichmann is a countercitation which indicates that the highest authority on this described it as "extermination" - so basically this amounts to POV pushing on your part. Fourdee 19:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The terms are used synonymously by historians, so we can certainly use whichever term we prefer. In this case, we prefer "mass murder". Please stop edit-warring over valid, properly sourced terms. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This - what possible basis is there for restoring conclusions drawn from a map (synthesis no matter what) which are not even supported by the map? You can't mix/combine/synthesis sources anyway. This needs to be removed.

The slaughter was systematically conducted in virtually all areas of Nazi-occupied territory in what are now 35 separate European countries.

What possible basis is there for restoring that??? It's not a citation, it doesnt make sense, the map doesnt even show most of what it says by any stretch. Absurd. Fourdee 18:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the material is inaccurate in some way? If so, how? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not supported by the citation. How can that map be offered for a citation for things it does not show in any way? At this point I'm just wondering why the heck the improper citation keeps getting restored like it makes sense or isn't some kind of synthesis. Fourdee 18:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the material is inaccurate in some way? If so, how? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The citation is improper. The map does not describe anything stated by that sentence. And if not the map, what is the actual source? It's the perogative of an editor to challenge any material, after which it must be sourced.

Also the newly introduced dictionary citation is improper might as well just remove it because for one thing I can admit a citation for "extermination" with equal validity, and it is confusing - it appears to be a mixed citation which is synthesis. The question is what did berenbaum originally say and are all the terms used synonyms for or the same terms as he used. Fourdee 19:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I need a yes or no answer regarding the map information. Regarding the phrase "mass murder", since it's appropriate and sourced, there's no reason to remove it, and it will be staying. If you want to cite the use of the term "extermination" somewhere else in the text, feel free to bring sources for that. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello? The map is not a citation for that sentence. What is the citation? Alles klar? That's all the "answer" you're getting. As far as "extermination" [5] lists it as the proper legal term used, making it NPOV. You don't own the article and do not have the right to push terms with the connotations you prefer (as you admit). The proper neutral term is "extermination" as used in the war crimes trials. I don't really care what POV you think is "staying" somewhere, or that 4 editors trying to own an article are intent on owning it. Consensus isn't determined by the squatters on an article, it will be determined if necessary by the dispute resolution process calling on the views of a wider body of editors and experts in policy. Fourdee 19:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The only reason for objecting to material in an article is if you think it is untrue or inaccurate. Please state your specific objection to this material, aside from your view that the source doesn't support it. Regarding the word "exterminate", this is not a court of law, "exterminate" is no more "neutral" than "mass murder", the term "mass murder" is widely used by scholars and properly sourced here, and your edits on this article to-date have been entirely tendentious and without merit. The people who object to your edits are experts in policy, and you're free to pursue whatever dispute resolution methods you think are appropriate. In your reply please do not repeat any previous arguments or claims you have made, as your statements have been repeated many times, and are well understood. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[intentionally abusive material from Rabbeinu removed again, ad infinitum]

Despite the wide consensus against you, you keep persisting and you keep inserting your view. The consensus is against you. Your position cannot be defended, since the vast majority of scientific sources support our terminology - and not yours. Give up, or end up getting eradicated from Wikipedia. Wikipedia functions by consensus among editors, and if you refuse to accept that, you and we have to seriously reconsider your role on Wikipedia. Your above comments ("you guys are totally out of line" and the comment below) show total ignorance of Wikipedia policy and total lack of manners, and thus I am responding to you in the same style. Once you improve on these subjects, we can take a closer look at the actual case in question. --Rabbeinu 18:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a case of 'consensus' by editors intent on portraying a certain POV on an article they regularly edit. The terminology in these last edits is the same as used in the war crimes indictments and other places in the article (I am pushing for "extermination" at this time). The map is not a citation for that sentence. I'm not changing Anything about this behavior and if you dont like it feel free to use an appropriate process. Otherwise your threats are themselves violation of policy, as is the obviously abusive tone you've taken (I already had to delete from your commments "You are the craziest editor I've ever seen"), so good luck with all that. This is a case of a group of editors believing they can do no wrong and that they own the article. Fourdee 18:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Produce sources for your views and then we can evaluate them. For example, you wrote "The claim that every segment of the government participated needs to be verified, and there are probably some differing points of view on that." We have scholarly sources saying the entire bureaucracy was involved, so please produce one that says otherwise; then we can talk about it. There's no point having an exchange based on your personal opinion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Right now there are two questions on the table. Did Berenbaum use the term "mass murder" and if not is that a direct synonym for whatever term used (appears is "killing process" below so it's obviously a paraphrase and a questionable one). Other question is what is the source for the map-cited sentence since it's not the map. Address those two issues then we can deal with any others.

Here is my citation that "extermination" is the appropriate unbiased legal term used [6]. As to the map issue, the onus is on you to cite or remove it, because the map is not a citation. Fourdee 19:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The term "mass murder" is used interchangeably with "extermination", and is properly cited. The fact that a trial used the term "extermination" is neither here nor there; trials do not determine "neutral" or "legal" usage, and in any event I believe that particular trial was carried out in Hebrew. The map is a proper citation, and in any event you need to express a specific objection regarding the content of an article to remove material; it is clear that you are objecting purely on technical grounds. In your reply please do not repeat any previous arguments or claims you have made, as your statements have been repeated many times, and are well understood. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Where do you get the idea I need to express some particular objection to the material other than "this is not the source, what is the source?" That is not the rule. "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references." Material lacks a source, here's your chance to provide it. Will be removing again tomorrow and every day after until proper (non-synthesized) source provided.
• As far as "mass murder" specifically the problem is that (check out mass murder) a mass murder is more like a single event, so at the least this should read "mass murders" - "extermination" is used elsewhere in the article to describe the holocaust and is more neutral in tone. You've already admitted your preference for "mass murder" is because of a connotation so your case is getting pretty flimsy from a NPOV standpoint.
• I suggest that when you feel there is not anything more to discuss, you cease replying, rather than trying to tell me what to do (answer this, don't say that). I will continue to edit in line with what I feel are the policies here, and remove the poorly sourced and biased material. If you don't want to try to work with me on it that is your prerogative. You don't own the article, and these three or four editors do not constitute "consensus" on the enforcement of policies.
• It seems very clear to me that the general practice here is to 1) squat on and own the article 2) enforce a certain POV 3) disregard any source with a different POV as "unreliable" 4) harass, intimidate, ridicule or threaten anyone who tries to break the POV stranglehold.

Good luck with all that. Personally I just think the neutral point of view is a good cause and that the use of any wikipedia article as a podium to push a particular value-judgment as an objective fact should be... eradicated - pulled up by the roots and tossed in the compost. Fourdee 20:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Lo and behold, apparently I am not the first person to refer to the holocaust as "eradication" (not that I have even been pushing for that term): BBC cites Nazis themselves, The_Destruction_of_the_European_Jews, researcher uses term, pro-israel group uses term. Apparently a lot of people are pushing totally made up terms or strange POVs... Funny stuff. Fourdee 20:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what's triggering your sense of humor. By the way, the Germans used the word "Vernichtung", which someone (Vonnegut?) referred to as "the ugliest word in any language". --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What is funny is that anyone would think "eradication" is a contrived piece of original research to describe what is otherwise often termed as "extermination." Obviously I am not the first one to use it, it's quite common and a lot closer to synonymous with "extermination" than "mass murder" is. And it's pretty neutral, it doesn't ascribe a moral value to the deed. Fourdee 21:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's editors like you who make my work on Wikipedia seem worthwhile, Fourdee. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why thank you, SlimVirgin. Fourdee 21:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I know German. "Vernichtung" roughly means to "negate existence," as "nicht" is the word for "not" and "nichts" is the word for "nothing." The "ver-" prefix and "ung" suffix are grammatical constructs. "Extermination" is best translated to "Ausrottung." In either case, such terms are euphemisms for mass murder. --Leifern 23:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If there were any Holocaust deniers around, they'd try to tell us that "Ausrottung" doesn't really mean extermination, it just means to drive them out. I've usually seen "Vernichtung" translated as "annihilation". Just an aside; nothing to do with the argument at hand. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆

Well, "dead" as in "tot" is, after all a value judgment, as is the proposition that one person can cause another's death. And the cessation of all vital forces isn't necessarily synonymous with death, as there are people who have a different view, and these must be cited. --Leifern 04:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What you "know" does not matter, cited neutral (even pro-israel, pro-jewish etc) sources use the terms extermination and eradication. The very fact that you consider them euphemisms indicates to me that you know these are more neutral terms - without specific connotations. Your desire to pack the article with certain moral connotations is quite clear, regardless of what any sources use and what by your own admission are more neutral terms. Also, you're just plain wrong. "Mass murder" happens all the time, it is a very mundane thing. "Extermination" and "eradication" are far more accurately descriptive terms of the extent of what happened. Fourdee 22:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What on earth would "pro-Israel" have to do with the Holocaust? Also, why is it that you have no trouble with capitalization except when it comes to the words "Israel" and "Jewish"? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Link with port number

That link that Kendrick "broke" and Slim "fixed" (according to edit comments) seems to actually work with or without the port number in it: version 1 or version 2. *Dan T.* 02:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I got a 404 when I clicked on Kendrick's version, so I switched it back. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

What made you turn up to this article suddenly, Dan? You've never edited here before. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes when I get into discussions / debates / whatever in one section of this site, out of curiosity I'll look at edit histories of people involved in them, and that will sometimes lead me to other articles, which, once I've made some minor typo fix or something on, will then wind up in my watch list, bringing me more into the editing of that. If that's "cyberstalking", so be it. Anyway, both versions of the link I posted here (with or without the port number) work for me. Kendrick did at one point post a version with the ".net" top level domain misspelled, which might be the failed one you tried. *Dan T.* 18:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think SlimVirgin is a stranger to that habit himself. Fourdee 19:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never had any encounter with you that I'm aware of, Fourdee, so what do you mean? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Severe formatting problem with pictures

Starting with WieselAuschwitzpits.jpg the article is showing a bad formatting problem on my (widescreen) display. Is there something that can be done about this? The following several pictures after that (in Victims and death toll) are progressively indented to the left more and more. This is a common sort of problem when pictures are placed in individual sections and the text will not necessarily be long enough before the next section. Solutions include placing pictures successively together in a section farther up the page, or reducing the number of picture (this article seems to suffer a bit from "picture spam". Any ideas? Fourdee 21:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Translation of "Volksgenosse"

In this context (in the Holocaust#Disabled and mentally ill section), "Volksgenosse" should translate to "fellow German" (singular) instead of "fellow Germans". The current translation of "Fellow Germans, that's your money too" would translate back into "Volksgenossen, das ist auch euer Geld". I would fix this myself if the article wasn't protected. (Yes, I know that this is just a minor error but this direct form of address is typical for Nazi propaganda.) Gnolsitacgnol 16:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "compatriot" would be better than "fellow German", though maybe it sounds too formal in English. Paul B 17:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Restoration of uncited material and sythesis-citation

I don't understand why these are being restored:

• The slaughter was systematically conducted in virtually all areas of Nazi-occupied territory in what are now 35 separate European countries. - this sentence is obviously not cited by the map given - probably no statement is even reflected by the map, at any rate drawing conclusions from maps is OR or synthesis and this map doesnt even imply most or all of what is said. Restored without any comment.

• Every arm of Germany's bureaucracy was involved in the logistics of the mass murder, turning the country into what one Holocaust scholar has called "a genocidal nation." - this doesn't work. You can't mix sources like that. The dictionary citation doesn't support the statements before it, it just supports calling the holocaust a mass murder - this is in effect a synthesis because unless "mass murder" stands on its own as a paraphrase of berenbaum, you can't combine another source with what he said to make a new statement. I suggest just leaving it as "mass murder" uncited for the time being rather than mixing sources.

• </ref> The Germans also characterized the process as "eradication". - don't see any justification for removing this (initially without comment) from a paragraph on how the Germans described the campaign.

Seems like you guys are just POV-pushing to me and at this point it doesn't matter what edit I make, you revert it (generally without any explanation either on the talk page or in the edit summary). As to the 3RR warning jayg left on my page I see this as two "reverts" on my part, I just intended to treat each issue separately so I could give proper summary edits for each - versus the habit you guys seem to have of reverting all changes together and without comment. This is more like "consecutive edits" which should be treated as one, as before I could even complete some of the following separately treated edits you guys were reverting. Fourdee 23:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, basically all the editors here admit it is precisely the biased connotations of "mass murder" that they prefer over the factually more accurate, and neutral terms "eradication" and "extermination" and at this point it's become such a rabid and irrational preference that even cited mentioned of "eradication" are vehemently opposed (when extermination is already used in the article and means almost precisely the same thing). Basically I would describe the whole habit as "rabid" and a perception of owning the POV of the article. Seems silly to have to invoke a dispute resolution over the obviously uncited material and questionable POV-pushing and paraphrasing (mass murder in one part, same citation is paraphrased as "killing process" below, these are not synonyms, what did the author say, etc.) At this point even a cited statement about how the germans refered to the holocaust in a paragraph about what terms the germans used to refer to it is removed. Also it's funny that you guys are watching article so closely that you revert within minutes. Combining the reverts into single edits is a smart way to avoid the appearance of 3RR violation while achieving the same effect as properly separating out issues into separate edits with comments. You guys are good at what you do, I'll give you that. Lesson learned. Fourdee 23:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourdee, someone might be forgiven for thinking that you are trying to promote the Nazi euphemisms for their crimes rather than the concise terms for the crimes themselves. You are demanding that the description of these crimes be "balanced" by some point of view that either doesn't exist or doesn't want to make itself known, a strawman argument that we have to consider for the sake of your singular interpretation of NPOV. There are probably individuals out there who don't deny what the Nazis did but applaud it, but they can not do this and at the same time say they are interested in creating something like Wikipedia. --Leifern 10:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourdee, you still haven't answered my questions above. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

- Leifern, to say that a pro-Nazi point of view, or the desire for statements to be balanced with such a point of, has no place on wikipedia is absolutely absurd. There's nothing about Wikipedia that should represent opposition to the Holocaust or Nazi Party any more than they should be supported. The point of Wikipedia is strict, non-negotiable neutrality. To me that's precisely the problem here and why it's worth fighting over. Obviously a number of people believed the holocaust wasn't wrong, so even by the "significant opposing point of view" standard this article should reflect some balance in presenting that. But that's not the precise issue I'm arguing for. I don't believe the NPOV policy current allows the stating of any subjective value as a fact, since it is not a fact. It's an ascribed value and should be attributed to some published source, if it's been challenged at any rate. If a source says "so and so was evil" that doesn't make it factually evil - the right way to handle that is "according to one source, so-and-so was evil."

- Your questions jayjg, without reviewing the page in detail, you asked why my objection was to the improperly cited sentence - at this point just that the citation doesn't support it. I don't know if all of what the sentence says is true or not, and the citation clearly doesn't support it. Your other question, why I didn't capitalize Israel and Jews? I'm not sure I would capitalize Jews (or arabs or englishmen or germans or whatever) but Israel was just an omission. What's it matter anyway?

- You guys make it like I am trying to belittle, revise, lie about, distort or diminish this horrible fucking tragedy incident. I have been looking at a number of likely articles, as they occur to me or come up, for cases of killing being characterized with some kind of value-judgment stated as a fact, due to systemic and political bias. I've addressed this problem on articles on different sides of the political spectrum and would like to see it applied to atrocious murders of innocent people bias-motivated killings that affect even my own ethnic and family heritage(s) such as the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre which I find particularly disturbing, even infuriating (I have at least one direct ancestor who was killed in related violence and a number who were seriously affected). It doesn't really matter how the particular subject of an article makes you feel. Prevalent political views today do make this problem more likely to appear in article dealing with "right-wing" atrocities, while "left-wing" killings are probably more likely to get a neutral treatment. I saw an article dealing with deaths in riots, and when whites died it was called "killed" but when blacks died it was "murdered". That sort of thing. Common problem, and this article has quite mild problems in comparison. It's become more an issue of breaking the stranglehold these several editors enforce on it. Fourdee 05:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're taking things too far. Every word in every language is subject to interpretation and disputes. By what standard is the United States an independent country? How do we know the moon isn't a big cheese suspended from a glass ceiling? How can imperfect countries claim to be democracies? And so on. Every legal system has objective criteria for terms like "murder," and the international community, thanks to Raphael Lemkin, has something approaching unified standards for what genocide means. There is a fringe group that dissents to the near-unanimous view of the Holocaust, with all the strong wording that typically goes with it; but their views are so marginal that it's enough to merely note their presence in the main article and provide a link to their views in a separate article. But if we start with the near-universally accepted premise that the Holocaust was one of the worst crimes of all time against humanity, and its perpetrators were criminals, then it isn't NPOV - given that premise - to characterize it that way. And I think we very carefully delineate the premise in the article. --Leifern 15:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Why is there no reference to "controversy" or "controversies" surrounding the holocaust in either this talk-page or the main article? The holocaust, no matter how sensitive a subject it is to jews, is still a topic which remains subject to debate like any other event in history, and more so since it has serious political ramifications. People use the holocaust as a convenient tool to further their political objectives. The reality is that the debate continues on in the 21st century. Did the holocaust happen, and if it did, to what extent? Wikipedia is a forum of free speech. [[user:72.66.38.101 06:41, 19 May 20

honestly :

I have barely even read this article and I have already spotted a mistake in the information. Holocaust means whole (holo) and burned (caust) not completley burned.

07 (UTC)]]

There's no controversy. Stop looking for one, and stop thinking so loud. Anyone who would even be able to ask a question like that is obviously a dirty jew-hater.

THis is important. i for one have heard the debate against the existence of the Holocaust and, even if I dnt believe it, would love to hear the argument. But there is no information here and I think that is ridiculous because it is one of the main features of wikipedia, giving both sides. However, someone informed me that it is infact illegal to question its existence, or atleast write about it, does anybody know if there is truth in this?

There is no serious, scholarly debate about the 'existence' of Holocaust any more, and hasn't been for many decades. What you have heard is a fabricated pseudo-controversy, akin to the Creationism-evolution controversy: a lot of noise made by people who find it hard to discard their pet (political) views.

The ongoing scholarly discussions are over particular details, or interpretations of particular pieces of evidence, but it's a far cry to consider that a debate of Holocaust's reality. Digwuren 08:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

We have an article on holocaust denial. Holocaust denial is illegal is some countries, including Germany. It is not in the US and UK. It certainly is not on the internet! Paul B 12:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that was a quick response, I just found that article and was gna post it right now but you beat me to it. I am glad it is here, I feel it is an important read, even if I am still unconvinced.

There should be a LINK to the denial article in this article. It should read along the lines of after World War II some groups tried to deny the holocaust happened or minimize its effect then a link should go there. This BELONGS in the main article. This is an encylopedia and whether we like it or not there are people who don't believe this. There is a link in the article on Evolution to those who do not believe in it.

4.142.45.109 03:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)Eric

There is a link to it on the page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, and by the way: Wikipedia is a forum of free speech is not true. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a say-whatever-is-in-your-head zone (sometimes mislabelled a "forum for free speech".) Anyone is free to contribute. Much different. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that including a mention of the "controversy" only helps to take away validity from the "revisionists". It allows for the article to introduce people new to the subject to the idea that yes, there are folks out there who claim it never happened, or "wasn't so bad", rather than having them introduced to the idea later by those people themselves, who will undoubtedly introduce their ideas in a much less objective light.

Denying something doesn't make the facts change. This is just as true for the existance of the Holocaust as it is for the existance of Holocaust denial.

Of course, to the contrary of what the first poster said, there is no actual "debate" over whether or not the Holocaust happened. Rather, there are a group of people who argue that it didn't, and the other "side" either just ignores them, or gets pissed off, butthey certainly don't lendthem any validity by actually accepting their argument as viable for debate.--207.188.254.18 12:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no controversies in science (and that includes history); they only occur in politics. However, adding a brief overview with the {{main}} link to Holocaust denial might be a good idea. Digwuren 08:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The Holocaust is NOT a subject of controversey. Not from anyone except for Neo Nazis or Anti-Semites, and they hardly count of course. It is a proven *fact*, and the entire world recognizes this, save for a few nutcases.

Soviet POWs

If 2-3 million died in the Holocaust, why is there only a paragraph of information on them? One would think that there would be more to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.43.234 (talk • contribs)

I'm intending to write a section on them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Estonian war crimes trials, 1961

There does not seem to be any project on the Holocaust, or anyplace to list new articles. Anyway, I created Category:Holocaust in Estonia and Estonian war crimes trials, 1961. The later one seems to be a honeypot for Estonian Holocaust deniers. -- Petri Krohn 13:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Naming controversy

(Back here asking more questions, as there does not seem to be a Holocaust project.)

Some Estonian editors want to rename Estonian war crimes trials to Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia. Is there any precedent for such a name?

I can not find any references for the use of the words "Holocaust trials". Google returns links to Holocaust denial trials.

I has been argued, that this group of Estonian editors has in fact an Holocaust denial agenda. It seems to me, that using the words "Soviet Estonia" instead of just Estonia or the proper Estonian SSR is intended to diminish the legitimicy of this court, and to portray it as a show trial. Am I wrong?

Please comment at Talk:Estonian war crimes trials#Requested move. -- Petri Krohn 19:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As for has been argued, yes it has. By one person -- who happens to be called Petri Krohn. He has made spurious accusations of "Holocaust denial" towards many, many people at least since January. Ever heard of him? Digwuren 08:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Beats me how naming an article Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia could possibly be construed as Holocaust denial, it just succinctly describes the article which concerns the trial of crimes committed in perpetrating the Holocaust and the trials took place when Estonia was a part of the Soviet Union. If anything, naming it Estonian war crimes trials would tend to diminish the especially heinous crimes of the Holocaust by placing it at the level of a mere War crime. --Martintg 19:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

BenZion Dinur

The source is discussing the use of the word Shoah. The word Holocaust is only used to clarify what BenZion Dinur is referring to:

"It was only when leaders of the Zionist movement and writers and thinkers in Palestine began to express themselves on the destruction of European Jewry that the Hebrew term sho'ah became widely used. It was still far from being in general use, even after the November 1942 declaration of the Jewish Agency that a sho'ah was taking place. One of the first to use the term in the historical perspective was the Jerusalem historian BenZion Dinur (Dinaburg), who, in the spring of 1942, stated that the Holocaust was a "catastrophe" that symbolized the unique situation of the Jewish people among the nations of the world." Paul B 20:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You left out an important part of what the source says:

The use of the Hebrew word sho'ah to denote the destruction of Jews in Europe during the war appeared for the first time in the booklet Sho'at Yehudei Polin (The Holocaust of the Jews of Poland), published by the United Aid Committee for the Jews of Poland, in Jerusalem in 1940. The booklet contains reports and articles on the persecution of Jews in eastern Europe from the beginning of the war, written or verbally reported by eyewitnesses, among them several leaders of Polish Jewry. Up to the spring of 1942, however, the term was rarely used. The Hebrew term that was first used, spontaneously, was hurban (lit., "destruction"), similar in meaning to "catastrophe," with its historical Jewish meaning deriving from the destruction of the Temple. It was only when leaders of the Zionist movement and writers and thinkers in Palestine began to express themselves on the destruction of European Jewry that the Hebrew term sho'ah became widely used. It was still far from being in general use, even after the November 1942 declaration of the Jewish Agency that a sho'ah was taking place. One of the first to use the term in the historical perspective was the Jerusalem historian BenZion Dinur (Dinaburg), who, in the spring of 1942, stated that the Holocaust was a "catastrophe" that symbolized the unique situation of the Jewish people among the nations of the world.[7]

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Pardon??? That's just the same paragraph I quoted. I don't think you actually understand the point. It's about the use of the term Shoah, not the term Holocaust. The passage is absolutely not saying that word Holocaust was used by BenZion Dinur. It's very clear about that. It's not clear whether Zion Dinur was writing in English or Hebrew. "Catastrophe" is of course a translation of "Shoah". I assume he was writing Hebrew. Paul B 21:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul, there's no need for responses like "Pardon???" If you think I've misunderstood something, just say so.

As I see it, there's no way of knowing that they mean "Shoah." The article is called "Holocaust - Definition", and the term they say at the start that they're defining is "Holocaust (Heb., sho'ah)." When they refer to Shoah throughout the article, they preface it by saying "the Hebrew term." In this sentence, they don't; they just say "it." Therefore, I understood it to mean Holocaust, and as I recall this is taken from Adam Carr's work (though I'll have to check that), and I believe he also understood it to mean Holocaust. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I did say so, but you strangely repeated the same paragraph - hence the "pardon". The paragraph seem pretty clear to me. Perhaps others can comment. Obviously he is referring to the event of the Holocaust. That is not the same as saying he is referring to the word Holocaust. The whole context of the paragraph establishes that it's a discussion of "Shoah". Regarding the word "Holocaust" itself, this was already well established a general term for burnings and mass deaths, as well as for more innocuous forms of destructive burning. I have an edition of Freud's letters from the 1970s in which the editor uses the word holocaust to describe the fact that some of the letters to Jung are missing because Freud "made a holocaust" (i.e. burnt them). The editor clearly thought that was an unproblematic use of term even then. Yes, it was also used to refer to Nazi genocides, but the most familar post-war usage before the 70s was to refer to the effects Nuclear war - referred to as Nuclear Holocausts. It becomes the established term for Nazi genocide after the 70s.Paul B 22:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Paul, that sounds like a lot of OR. Do you have any sources for what you are saying? The sources we have right now, Yad Vashem, are saying that by the 1950s, the English word "Holocaust" came into use to refer to the genocide of the Jews in Europe. If you have a source that refutes that, please let us have it. Thanks, Crum375 22:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As it turns out, the original Yad Vashem document makes Dinur's statement clearer. So I fixed the wording and put in the correct reference. Crum375 23:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not OR. Your source makes it clear that Dinur was using the word shoah, as I said. Yad Vashem do use holocaust among other words as an English language translation of shoah in documents from the 50s, but in normative English usage the word "holocaust" is just one of many options to use for many forms of destructiveness. The most common usage was with reference to nuclear war. Here's a detailed source on the subject Yad Vashem usage mainstream usage. Paul B 23:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was that you omitted the context, which I think indicates they're talking about the term "Holocaust."

If what you say is not OR, can you produce a reliable source? I don't who the source is that you post above, but it's self-published. I also found it on a Holocaust denial site. [8] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, what do you mean by "normative English usage"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I just don't understand how you can possibly interpret the paragraph as being about the word Holocaust when it clearly states it's about the word Shoah, as Crum's source also makes absolutely clear. I've no idea whether the source I referred to appears on a holocaust denial website or not, but it clearly is not denying the holocaust is it? I don't know what the issue is here. There is no doubt at all that the word holocaust had a very wide and varied usage before the 70s. The OED details the range of usages. "normative" was just a word to suggest "most recognised" or "most common". That's what normative means. Paul B 00:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen normative used to mean that. It tends to mean prescribed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It means pertaining to a norm. Yes, it's often used with the specific sense of prescribed usage. Paul B 00:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The article I referenced was - as it clearly states - first published in the Journal of Genocide Research, 2000. Here's their web page [9]. Paul B 00:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not a link to the article. Do you know who Jon Petrie is? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read before you react and write. As I said, it's a link to the webpage of the journal in which the article was published, just to demonstrate that the journal is entirely repectable. It's published by Routledge. Here's a link to the issue with the article for you [10]. Paul B 00:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who Jon Petrie is, but his POV seems to be leftist-secular. He may be the same Jon Petrie who was involved with student activism in the late 1960s [11]. Paul B 12:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"extension of the word"

Crum has reverted some edits and restored the following wording:

Even more hotly disputed is the extension of the word to describe events that have no connection with World War II. It is used by Armenians to describe the Armenian genocide of World War I. The terms "Rwandan Holocaust" and "Cambodian Holocaust"...

While the reverted edit was certainly strange (references to the Iliad etc), it's worth pointing out that there are problems with the current one. Firstly it implies that all these other usages are extensions of the Nazi-related usage, but it is very well established that the word was applied to massacres of Armenians well before WW2. Our own Armenian Genocide article gives several sources, as does Petrie. All of the following refer to Turkish murders of Armenians:

"Another Armenian Holocaust" (1895 headline in New York Times, referring to new attacks following 1894 killings)
The Young Turks and the Truth about the Holocaust at Adna (1913)
The Holocaust (1920)
The Smyrna Holocaust (1923)
"helpless Armenians, men, women, and children together, whole districts blotted out in one administrative holocaust" (Winston Churchill in The World Crisis (1931))

Churchill's coinage "administrative holocaust" is intended to imply organized mass murder, clearly prefiguring later usage with reference to Nazism. In all these cases 'holocaust' is simply one graphic term chosen where others might also have been used ('massacre, 'carnage' etc). It only stands out because of its later significance. Nevertheless it was clearly familiar and established before 1939. The use of the word to refer to fire-bombings during and after WW2 also became well established. The coinages "X holocaust" and "Y holocaust" do emerge in the 80s as intentional comparisons to the Nazi genocides. In that context "Armenian holocaust" acquires a new significance, but it is not accurate to say that it is an "extension of the word to describe events that have no connection with World War II." Paul B 15:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with Crum's view is that the only use of the word which is not in some sense an extension is the original meaning: the offering to a god of a consecrated victim totally consumed by fire - an unusually significant sacrifice, as normally a part of the animal would be retained for consumption by the worshippers. I suspect that early metaphorical uses were journalistic, since half a minute's thought shows that the use of a term like that for the Armenian massacres carries at some level the implication that they were a good thing (which is no doubt the reason for the correct but rather underplayed mention in this article of Jewish theological objections to the term). This original meaning (as I pointed out in one of my rejected additions) still exists and is in current use in historical and literary contexts, despite the increasing use of the term for the tragedy of 1933-1945.

The extension of the term began (as has been pointed out here) long before the Second World War. I remember it being used in the press at the time of the consecration of the new Coventry cathedral, and have frequently seen it used in relation to the Dresden firestorm (for example in Slaughterhouse 5 by Kurt Vonnegut). It was seldom used in the UK for the Nazi extermination of the Jews until the 1970s (there was an article about this in an English newspaper about ten years ago, probably the Independent), though I believe that the coinage was American and entered US usage earlier.

Incidentally, I think Crum's other reverts are also rather overbearingly intolerant of my attempts to make minor improvements to the article. For example, it's not my experience that the word is normally or even often spelt with an initial capital, nor (and I find this curious observation insulting to writers both in English and German) that "final solution" is in wide use as a synonym (though it is of course used in historical works when describing the Nazi point of view); indeed, I doubt that (as he seems to prefer) all Germans called the events "the final solution to the Jewish question" -- although the Nazis certainly did, and many Germans followed them as people do their governments, there were certainly those, Jewish, Christian and other, who found such language as offensive as we do. Oh, and the Greek: Greek adjectives are conventionally cited in the masculine, not the neuter currently shown.

I have better things to do with my time than engage in edit wars, but those reading this will get some feel for a few small weaknesses in this part of the article. Deipnosophista 07:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well there seems no dispute about these points, so I will make appropriate changes. However, "Final Solution" was widely used before Holocaust became the norm. Shirer uses the phrase. I don't think its use is simply about conveying the Nazi POV. While I'm sure that the word holocaust with its original meaning is used in translations of the Iliad and other Greek classics,I don't think that's really relevant here. Paul B 13:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hitler quotes

Since Hitler gave lots of speeches, many vitriolic and extreme, there is no easy way to pick a representative quote out of the multitude, assuming we decided we need one. It seems to me that we already established Hitler's intent with the Nuremberg Laws and elsewhere, and adding any more is simply wasting precious article space, where we are already over budget. I would still add quotes, in principle, if they add important new material or aspects of the Holocaust. But just adding more random Hitler quotes does not enhance the entry at this point, in my opinion. Crum375 23:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

What could be more relevant to the article? These are primary sources and generally trump a third party characterizing someone's statements. Fourdee 23:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are actually inferior to secondary sources, especially in contentious cases. So good secondaries here will normally trump the others. In addition, my point above had nothing to do with source quality, and everything to do with relevance (making new points or adding new information), given that we are already over budget space-wise. Crum375 00:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What's more reliable, what Hitler actually said, or what someone says he said? I misspoke when I characterized this as a primary source (although it is in a sense) - it's a secondary source stating a fact (a source stating what Hitler said), versus a secondary source interpreting what he said for us. Fourdee 00:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means it's not a collection of scientific papers with near-raw results or facts. As a tertiary source, our goal is to present information that is analyzed and interpreted by others, who are qualified experts in the field, wherever possible. In the case of a Hitler speech, it would generally be reliable, if it comes from a reliable published source, but experts can help interpret it and place it in the proper historical perspective. So the issue is not whether Hitler said those words, but how they should be interpreted, and their relative significance compared to all the other events. There is also the issue of writing and presentation - we have limited space into which we must squeeze a huge amount of potential material, and this is where our collective editorial judgment comes into play, in deciding on what material to select, where to place it, how to present it, and to ensure good writing and flow. Crum375 00:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Contested changes

• I tried to add what I thought was an important and well-cited proviso to the paragraph blaming all of Germany for the holocaust, to wit that the public and even Hitler's inner circle were told that what was happening was deportation. Seems pretty significant - albeit a small addition to the article - SlimVirgin immediately removed it without comment.
• I tried to remove material which I think everyone agreed was not supported by its citation (map doesn't show 35 countries or anything else stated, appears to be used in synthesis) - SlimVirgin immediately restored it without comment.
• What better balance could be added to the article than a few of Hitler's own words? Or perhaps Eichmann? Can these men not be allowed to speak even briefly on their own behalf? Aren't their statements and motivations quite relevant? These are facts, preferable to someone else paraphrasing or characterizing for them.
• You point to my (since dropped) insertion of "eradication" as evidence I'm being disruptive when in fact that is probably the best translation of "Ausrottung". The citation I provided called it "extirpation", and Beolingus, a German-English dictionary, lists all three of eradication, extirpation, and extermination. At any rate, if a person doing something characterizes his actions a given way, it's at least relevant to mention that - it's a fundamental element of balance in the article, as well as patently on-topic.
• If space is at a premium, why not address the redundant citations of Berenbaum. His assertions appear twice (and apparently no counter-argument is allowed to be added).

Fourdee 23:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourdee, I think you'd be spared a lot of aggravation if you first post your proposed changes here for discussion. And I would do it one point at a time, so we don't lose focus. Crum375 00:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You'd like to see a separate section for each point? No problem. Fourdee 00:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ausrottung - extermination, eradication, or extirpation?

SlimVirgin deleted "extirpation" and "eradication" from the meanings of Ausrottung when the source cited uses "extirpation" and the dictionary I checked (Beolingus) lists all 3. Slim also indicates my use of "eradiction" is evidence of trying to disrupt the article when "extermination" is virtually synonymous and already appears every times. Also feels that "mass murder" must stay in the section on Berenbaum despite it below being characterized as "killing process". All seems rather arbitrary. It's clear the preference for "murder" is one of connotation rather than it being more accurately descriptive, or neutral. Fourdee 00:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The interpretation of Rosenberg's phrase "ausrottung des Judentums" to mean "elimination of Judaism" rather than "extermination of Jews" was an issue in the Lipstadt/Irving trial. I assume you know this. The problem here is that what you consider to be "neutral" terminology is typical of the kind of evasive bureaucrat-speak preferred by the Nazis themselves, who use it to avoid admission of what they are doing. So what you thin is NPOV can easily be interpreted as a mirror of Nazi POV. Paul B 01:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Some representation of the Nazi POV should be made, and at any rate, terms should be selected for their factual accuracy and I think both "eradication" (as currently used in English) and "extermination" are more accurate than "mass murder" as well as lacking the connotation of moral wrongness. My biggest question is how can both "killing process" and "mass murder" be reasonable paraphrases of the same statements by Berenbaum? Killing process is neutral, mass murder has a connotation. The fact editors are fighting tooth and nail to keep "mass murder" in indicates to me that it's a matter of POV-pushing (why else would the preference be so vehement for this single instance of the term?), and that its appearance in the section attributing guilt for these murders to all of Germany is no coincidence at all. Also reflected by SlimVirgin's refusal to admit counter-statements to the effect that this was not sold as "mass murder" to the participating Germans, but rather as "deportation". The nuances in terms are quite significant to the claims by Berenbaum and counter-citation should be offered - that's a separate matter I've listed above though. Fourdee 01:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourdee, this is starting to become an exercise in absurdity. --Leifern 02:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to participate, don't. I think it's absurd you believe no other points of view should be mentioned, particularly those of the people who actually did this. Fourdee 02:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourdee, as I tried to explain to you in the Hitler speeches section above, we need to base the article on the best possible sources. In this type of contentious article, the best sources are established scholarly mainstream historians, who can analyze the copious amounts of evidence and put it all into historical perspective. The source you cite above appears to be a counter holocaust denier site, which has a specific agenda. We prefer sources who are established eminent scholars, who write academic textbooks and papers on the subject and are widely cited. So it boils down to selecting the right sources. We as Wikipedia editors cannot and should not debate specific issues like what the German people knew or didn't know – we need to focus on finding the best possible sources, and quote or rely on them. Crum375 03:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There are many reasons why terms like "extermination" might be objected to. It's the term used for mass killing of vermin, for example, which is exactly how the Nazis portrayed Jews. So again, what you think of as "neutral" can easily be interpreted as a Nazi POV. I very much doubt that you will find anyone outside the Adolf Fan Club who thinks mass murder is not an accurate term. As for the participating Germans, yes, I think it's reasonable to point out that that the fact that whole of occupied Europe participated in some way can, if phrased misleadingly, imply that everyone in occupied Europe was a willing and knowing accomplice to mass murder. Paul B 10:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Quotes, counter-claims

SlimVirgin says: "don't add to the lead, and don't add random Hitler quotes: Fourdee, we're trying to create a high quality piece of writing, not the usual series of quotes, claims, and counter-claims"

Why not add to the lead? Why is Berenbaum's assertion mentioned in the lead and again below? Why aren't quotes relevant and preferable to a characterization by someone else of those statements? Why aren't counter-claims allowed? How can there be NPOV on a controversial topic without claims and counter-claims? Anyway, it wasn't a random Hitler quote, it was directly relevant. Fourdee 00:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourdee, you decided to split into sections, but discussing the Hitler speeches in several locations is very inconvenient and borders on disruptiveness. Please try to concentrate discussion in one place. Crum375 03:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Before, you said, "Fourdee, I think you'd be spared a lot of aggravation if you first post your proposed changes here for discussion. And I would do it one point at a time, so we don't lose focus."

I only know one way to interpret that. To "post your proposed changes" "one point at a time" means to post them individually, which I did. I now see that you probably meant "we should discuss only one of these changes at a time", which is not reasonable at all - that's a waste of time and just prolongs matters. Anyway, I was just trying to do what you suggested in plain English and what made sense in context. Fourdee 04:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Uncited statements w/ map citation

Restored without comment by SlimVirgin:

The slaughter was systematically conducted in virtually all areas of Nazi-occupied territory in what are now 35 separate European countries.

No statement made is supported by that map, and drawing conclusions from a map is probably original research or synthesis anyway. Fourdee 00:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So please find for us a more correct number of countries with a better source. That will show you really care about improving the quality of the article. Just complaining about it does not help us. Crum375 03:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. The sentence is not cited by what appears to be the citation. What's the argument for keeping material which has been challenged and for which there is not citation? I have no idea how many countries the Nazis occupied at the time or how many countries they are today, or which of those had slaughter in them. As far as I can tell the map shows 5 "death camps" in 1 country and about 22, 23 modern countries one of which at least I know was not occupied by the Nazis. The citation does not support Any statement made in that sentence, and I get the feeling this may be par for the course with citations in this article, but this one has been identified. According to the map, "There were 5 death camps in Poland" that's it. Uncited material should be cited or removed and nobody seems in the least interested in fixing this so it should be removed. The onus is ON THE PERSON WHO RESTORES MATERIAL to provide the citation! There's no ambiguity about this. Fourdee 04:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That is true about contentious issues. In this case, we have an article under construction, where not everything in it is perfectly sourced. So we are working on improving the sourcing, and it takes time. We need all the help we can get, and if you are so concerned about this article, please help us improve its sourcing. Just complaining about the quality of a source for a minor non-contentious issue is not helpful. Crum375 05:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)