Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Lead and scholars

The lead's discussion of scholars disagreeing about what the term Holocaust should apply to is bugging me. Although it is an important topic that should be mentioned somewhere in the article, what's more important for the lead is not what the Holocaust should mean to people but what it does mean to people. If reliable sources state that in general the term Holocaust is understood to include the murder of non-Jews let the lead say so, but if reliable sources say that in general the Holocaust is understood to refer to the murder let it say that. But scholarly disagreements about hypothetical ideals do not belong in the lead.--Anewpester (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

For some scholars, it does mean an inclusive view, for others, it doesn't, and for yet others, it's a matter of should but doesn't. We don't have unanimity of scholars saying should, but doesn't. We do have many factions claiming pluralities, and we're navigating WP:UNDUE, across the many cultures that speak English, and have different perspectives on the topic. Do you have a different lede you would like to propose (See prior attempts on this page for examples) that can navigate these waters? Ronabop (talk)

It would be highly misleading if equate the fate of the other groups persecuted by the Nazis with the Jews. Nazi policy was to eliminate the Jews of Europe. 78% of Jews in German occupied Europe were killed compared to 6% of Poles, 15% of Soviets, 20% of Roma, 1% of German homosexuals. The Germans ended the policy of killing the disabled because of protests by German Protestant churches. Nazi Germany had up to 2 million citizens who were bi-lingual Polish-German, 800,000 Soviet citizens served in the Wehrmacht.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. This discussion is about what scholars say - not your personal POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

@Ronabop: The lead should only state what The Holocaust is commonly understood to mean. If scholars have opinions about how is is commonly understood their opinions belong in the lede but not their opinions of what the Holocaust should mean.--Anewpester (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia includes all significant views from reliable sources. If there is a notable debate about what the Holocaust "should" mean, we have to provide an account of that debate in the article and introduce it in the introduction. the only question is, is the debate notable? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Deja Vu. Above in the talk page I posted a list from Columbia of various scholars who used more inclusive definitions. There is some variance in the English speaking world about what the word Holocaust actually does mean. Do you have a suggestion for improving the wording? Ronabop (talk) 04:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Do the scholars claim that "Holocaust" has a more inclusive definition or do they claim that it should have a more inclusive definition?--Anewpester (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The Columbia scholars set forth a more inclusive definition in their work and provide their rationale. Please refer to the archived discussion page (Jan. 2009, "Lead Paragraph") which gives a list of each cited source and the various definitions used.Tobit2 (talk) 05:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're referring to Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 20#Lead Paragraph, wherein one editor argues to change the lead based on one scholarly article. The article in question The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust, in its opening sentence states that "[t]he Holocaust is commonly defined as the mass murder of more then 5,000,000 Jews by the German during World War II." The article then goes to argue that the definition should be more inclusive, but never moving away from its initial assertion that the Holocaust is commonly defined by the murder of the Jews.

This one article should not be given equal weight to the scholarly consensus that the term Holocaust is exclusive to the murder of the Jews. Moreover, the lead of an article should not be the place for advancing new ideas and theories. Although important, the ideas promulgated by Donald L. Niewyk and Francis R. Nicosia should best be placed somewhere else on Wikipedia, like in an article entitled The definition of the Holocaust.--Anewpester (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no such "scholarly consensus" and there are numerous academic articles which discuss the killings of gypsies/Roma in "the holocaust". [1]. There are also many sources that discuss extended usage to include other groups. For example we have Teaching and studying the Holocaust‎by Samuel Totten and Stephen Feinberg, who write, "Other groups that are commonly cited as Holocaust victims are Soviets, particularly prisoners of war (POWs), the Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals" p.35. There is also Israel Charny's Encyclopedia of Gencide [2]. This is five minutes of looking on google books. In reality there are numerous books and articles which use or discuss this extended usage. German wikipedia has no authority just because it's German. Indeed the majority of scholarship is in English. No one is disputing the centrality of Jewish experience, but it is a fact that extended usage is common. Paul B (talk) 14:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It's irrelevant whether the murder of gypsies and homosexuals is discussed in the context of the Holocaust. There's also an article out there about the "Holocausts effects on the environment". Nobody will claim that the term Holocaust includes the environmental damage caused by the Nazis. Not to god-forbid compare the murder of groups to environmental effects. Point is, just because the murder of others besides for the Jews are mentioned in the context of the Holocaust does not mean that the term Holocaust is understood to include all Nazi murder victims. Are there any reliable sources or accepted scholarly material that state that the Holocaust means the murder of others besides for Jews? So far all we have is one article by scholars (notable?) arguing that Holocaust should include other murder victims. On the other hand, we have multiple sources that say that the Holocaust means the murder of the Jews.--Anewpester (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that argument is preposterous. The effects of the holocaust on the environment or on anything else are quite different from the assertion that a particular group is included as a victim of the holocaust, which is what we are discussing. Did you even read the examples I linked? All the examples specifically include groups other than Jews. Paul B (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in the provided links supports the claim that the term Holocaust refers to all Nazi murder victims. They support the claim that others were murdered during the Holocaust, which is not in dispute. --Anewpester (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please stop changing the argument. It begins to look like disingenuousness. No-one has said that "all Nazi murder victims" are included in ther holocaust. The statement that they were killed "during the holocaust" is meaningless. No-one is using "holocaust" to refer to a time period. Otherwise everyone who died in 1942-5 could be said to have been killed "during the holocaust". You are playing with words. It is very clear that these authors are discussing the inclusion of specific groups as victims of the holocaust. The exact quoted phrase was "Holocaust victims". Paul B (talk) 16:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing is being changed. Not one reliable sources has yet to be presented that states that the term Holocaust refers to "murder of Jews and gypsies", the "murder of Jews and homosexuals", the "murder of Jews and Poles", the "murder of Jews and Freemasons", the "murder of Jews and Russians," or the "murder of Jews and others". We have one scholarly article that claims that the term should include other victims but admits that the terms is exclusive to the murder of Jews. --Anewpester (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No we do not. It is pointless discussing this further with you because you are simply ignoring plain evidence. We have several sources that refer to victims of the holocaust which includes groups other than Jews. 'Holocaust' is just a word. It means what people use it to mean, and that meaning varies and changes over time and between different scholars. It's very very clear. Paul B (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the "[n]o we do not" referring to the last assertion, that "we have one scholarly article that claims that the term should include other victims but admits that the terms is exclusive to the murder of Jews?" If yes, please see the opening sentence of this article by Donald L. Niewyk and Francis R. Nicosia, which is being used a source for the lead's arguments. There has been an ocean like amount of ink spilled on the Holocaust, yet there isn't one reliable source out there supporting the lead's claims that some scholars maintain that the term Holocaust refers to other groups that were murdered by the Nazis.--Anewpester (talk) 19:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This "one article" thing is a red herring. What matters is that a view is significant from a notable source. If we have only one source, but it provides an account of significant views, we use it. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That's true. However, the article apparently doesn't make the claim that anyone mainstream considers the term Holocaust to refer to the murder of any of the other "undesirable" groups. The article's point is only that the Holocaust should begin referring to the genocide of other groups. The validity of this argument is inconsequential for the lead's purposes. The lead is not the place for new proposals nor for etymological analysees of the name of the article. The lead should only summarize the main parts of the article. --Anewpester (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Please read this link from the USHMM which defines the Holocaust. This pretty much is in agreement with our lead[3]--Woogie10w (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The USHM is one view. It is not the truth." NPOV demands tht we include all notable views. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It is in agreement with out lead except for our lead's unsourced tangent about how "Some scholars have extended this definition to include the Nazis' systematic murder of other groups" and "Scholars continue to debate whether the term Holocaust should be applied to all victims of the Nazi mass murder campaign equally with some suggesting it be applied solely to Jewish victims." --Anewpester (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The header points this out as it is. What do you want to change? Pointer, Germans in public treat the topic far more seriously than in the US. Americans do not trivalize Slavery, however the Holocaust has become a political football in the US. The Holocaust has become synomous with any and all genocides in history.

I am not suggesting changes. I am replying to someone who is. Please be clear. Also your personal opinions about America are irrelevant and, frankly, often difficult to make sense of. Your last sentence is wholly false. The Holocaust is what the Nazis did. The only issue for this article is who we discuss as the victims of this specific event. The fact that other events can be called "holocausts" is beside the point. Paul B (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

By Executive order 12169- the "Holocaust" is the systematic and State-sponsored extermination of six million Jews and some five million other peoples by the Nazis and their collaborators during World War II [4] This is the politically correct definition of the Holocaust.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

not trying to be difficult here - but that is the US definition - what about the majority of the rest of the world - in particular - how is the term used in Germany itself? Whitehatnetizen (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

ONE- The historical background of European Antisemitism needs to be addressed in a factual manner
TWO- The article is highly misleading when it equates the fate of the other groups persecuted by the Nazis with the Jews. By including the Poles and Roma we have opened Pandora’s box to allow in all persons who died at the hands of the Nazi’s.
THREE-The poor coverage of Nazi crimes in the USSR in this article reflects prevailing view of scholars in the English speaking world.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Please be clear: which view dos not come from a significant notble source? Your opinion about which views you prefer is not the issue. You have to call to our attention views in the article that are unsourced. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, on this page I have argued in vain-German Wikipedia should be our guide, de:Holocaust, the Holocaust should be only the Jewish victims of the Nazis, all others should be on a separate page--Woogie10w (talk) 14:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No, we should write our article following our own policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter turned the Holocaust into a political football that we live with today [5] The White House wanted a group of people who were geographically and ethnically diverse. This issue unearthed the question of who true victims of the Holocaust referred to. Were the six million Jews killed by the Nazis the only group being memorialized? What about the other five million people (Gypsies, homosexuals, Ukrainians and others)? Elie Wiesel, the first chairman of both the commission and the council, wanted the memorial to, first and foremost, remember the Jews. Because the Jews were killed due to biological identity, rather than societal identity, many people considered them pre-eminent victims. Other groups felt that equal representation was necessary and the politics of representation on the Memorial Council were intense. The White House was the focus of lobbying from all sides, ranging from foreign governments concerned about the depiction of their citizenry to survivors who were resentful of any attempt to dilute the magnitude of suffering by the Jewish people.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The English article goes into more depth than the German one. The Roma and Sinti are included in the Holocaust in the German article (no debate). The others like Slavs and handicapped just "fall through the cracks" and they appear not to be part of any holocaust, and fall outside the scope of the other article "Holocaust (begriff)", which describes all sorts of mass murders, from way back in history, to the present time, and including the Holocaust. I think we a better to stick with the English article, and improve that one. Maybe the English article also influences the German one! Wallie (talk) 06:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This page is turning into discussion of the Holocaust, rather than a discussion of this article. The only purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the article, so make a proposal or go away. Permitted proposals must comply with NPOV, V and NOR - it does not matter what any editor thinks. Nor can an editor synthesize from different sources, or promote his or her own argument based on sources. Any argument must come from a significant authority in a reliable source. If you do not have time to do the research, go away. This is not a chat room. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think so? I do think we sometimes have to discuss things to clarify things in our own mind. If any one person is confused about anything in the article, you can be sure that other readers are also confused about the same thing. I cannot see how discussing any article's content is outside the scope of improving that article. We all have our viewpoints, which can hopefully change, once we learn more. NPOV is an abstract ideal. By discussing things, hopefully both people (if there are two) can become closer to this ideal of NPOV. I do agree that some of the two way "chats" can become protracted. It would be helpful if some of these could be taken off line. Wallie (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat is fine, if it improves the article. A great deal of the talk page, as it is, consists of the flogging of opinions, with calls for the article to be changed (somehow), but without any actual constructive textual changes being suggested by the same parties complaining about the content. Since I've worked in the wikipedia Scientology project, I'm fairly used to this debate tactic, but others may not be as used to it. In short, the "victim" screams that "the truth must be told", and then issues demands. The demands can never actually be met, because that removes attention from the person issuing the demand.

So, what happens is a broken cycle of attention-seekers with a constant stream of demands, trolling articles by always being unhappy, and asking others to "fix it". In F/OSS terminology, I would say this is an issue of 'patches welcomed'. The subtext being that anybody willing to do the hard work is accepted.... but complainers, who complain for ego gratification, or fame, or whatever, are not rewarded. Ronabop (talk) 09:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ho Hum, it is more than obvious that some folks around here have never bothered to read even a basic history of the Holocaust. The research tool of choice is a quickie search on Google books.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am opposed to this material in the lead:

Eli Wiesel and Yehuda Bauer contend the Holocaust should include only Jews because it was intent of the Nazis to exterminate all Jews, the other groups were not to be totally annihilated. Simon Wiesenthal maintained that although all Jews were victims, the Holocaust transcended the confines of the Jewish community. Other people shared the tragic fate of victimhood.

I have two problems. First, I have no objction to this material in the body of the article - but thislevel of detail (naming names) belongs in the body; the lead should summarize the body (e.g."there is a debate as to whether the Holocuast in unique, and a debate as to whether it is exclusively Jewish") with an account of the debate in the body. Second, as an account of th debate this is very anemic. Woogie just added the line about Wiesel and Bauer, with no citations. In addition to citations, we need to know why they hold this view (as is the case with Wiesenthal). This is an encyclopedia. Saying that x holds a particular view is not really educating anyone; what matters is their reasons forholding that view. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

the line about Wiesel and Bauer are quoted directly in the Barenbaum book, get the book and read it, the presentation is correct. We need to add the names of the persons to back up our arguments, rather than "some scholars" wesel words in my opinion. We are detailing the reasons why "some scholars" have X POV. The post is necessary to avoid the endless row over the lead. --Woogie10w (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You are responsible for content you add. Are you saying that it is better not to have a citation? Are you saying it is better not to provide their reasoning? Please explain how this is better? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
BUT THERE IS A CITATION, BARENBAUM HAS AN ESSAY ON THE TOPIC WHERE HE EXPLAINS THEIR POVs. --Woogie10w (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Also Eli Wiesel and Simon Wiesenthal are well known figures, people will recognize their names, contrasting their POVs back up our lead with credible sources. Tell me "some scholars should replace this.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
"some scholars" wesel words in my opinion--Woogie10w (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Since this is such a contentious issue it is best to back up the arguments with the opinions of respected and well known figures. Readers will know up front that there is a debate and what are the main arguments. This was not done previously.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Now here is excess detail in the lead that needs to be cut ASAP before being transported hundreds of miles by freight train --Woogie10w (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

We could quite quickly add all positions from all major scholars, with appropriate citations, but that would likely turn the lede into a citation pissing match. I like the idea of a few positions being represented, with jumping off points for further research. That being said, it could use some editing (Other people shared the tragic fate of victimhood is redundant in the current context). Oh, and a note to other editors: There is no Holocaust expert named Barenbaum, don't waste your time looking for him, look for Berenbaum instead, specifically Michael_Berenbaum. Seems to be a frequent typo. ;) Ronabop (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Other people shared the tragic fate of victimhood but the other groups were not to be totally annihilated. These words contrast the two opposing POV in a nutshell. The lead now has a NPOV, the readers will decide the correct definition not us.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The real scary thing about this page is that editors tend to rely exclusivly on Google Books for sources, the very idea of taking trip to the local library never ever crosses their minds. Please get the Bernbaum's book A Mosaic of Victims and read it--Woogie10w (talk) 10:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I will totally confess that I don't get on a horse, and ride (or walk) to a document station called a "library", to read texts printed on paper (really? no, really? that's completely insane IMNSHO), by the light of kerosene lanterns, because I don't fetishize about dead 20th century technology. I do still buy and read tree-books (about 3-5 a week), but I prefer to not use document sources where my reading habits are stored, tracked, and used by law enforcement (I live in the US). Ronabop (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Which timeline? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

In New York City where I live we have an excellant library system that I take advantage of. I have depended on the internet for all my news since 1998, but have yet to read an E book from cover to cover. My point was to encourage editors to do some basic research on the topic of the Holocaust. The same folks that monitor our reading habits determine what is taught in our schools regarding the Holocaust. --Woogie10w (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

When we edit this article we should recognize that the Holocaust is a topic that is not exclusively in the academic domain, hence the views of experts outside the academic community are relevant here. Prior to the 1978 TV mini-series Holocaust the topic was for the most part in the domain of professional historians. Since then the Holocaust has become commercialized and trivialized in ways that would have been unthinkable prior to 1978. The Holocaust is taught in our schools in order to conform to the current point view of the general public; the views of the academic community are not always taken into account when the curriculum is formulated. The article should reflect this reality.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"Prior to the 1978 TV mini-series Holocaust the topic was for the most part in the domain of professional historians." Really? And your source is? And you think Leon Uris was a historian? Earlier, you said you do not have the time to do research ... so, are you just making these things up? Look, no encyclopedia article has room for a POV pusher. If you want to edit an encyclopedia article, don't you want to do research?

As for sources for Weisel and Bauer, why not cite the book in which Weisel wrote what he wrote, ditto Bauer. If you care about the Holocaust, don't you want to read books by Weisel and Bauer? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You wrote-If you want to edit an encyclopedia article, don't you want to do research? Yes I have; Berenbaum has an extensive discussion of the views of Bauer, Wiesel and Wiesenthal in the book that he edited which was published by an academic press. --Woogie10w (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

For a discussion of the impact of the 1978 TV series I recommend Popular culture and the shaping of Holocaust memory in America By Alan L. Mintz. Prior to 1978 the Holocaust was not part of popular American culture. --Woogie10w (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

yes, you have repeatedly pushed this POV. And I accept it as a significant POV. But there are others. Exodus and the Zionist movement did much to bring the Holocaust to general attention in the US. As for points of view, Berenbaum may be great, but surely he would explain why they arived at the views they hold, and anyway, I still do not see why you would not want to read Weisel and Bauer directly. Both had long careers and wrote many things (Weisel for example was vociferously opposed to the 1978 TV series; he didn't want it shown and did not like the effect it had). Slrubenstein | Talk 19:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have no itention to argue. I have read Bauer's Holocaust but none of Wiesel. In the 1970's the Holocaust was just not well known in America. There is no comparison with today. Regards --Woogie10w (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen the TV series, I refuse to watch it, I agree with Wiesel on that point. In any case it has no direct relation to the content of this article.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Prior to my edit today readers did not have a clear explanation as to why some scholars include only Jews in the Holocaust; not even in the footnotes. I am sure that we can elaborate on this topic in the future. --Woogie10w (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Berenbaum, Wiesel, Bauer and Wiesenthal are top notch well known respected sources that will be recognized by the average reader. We could list lesser known academics in the footnotes. Berenbaum is a heavyweight, it will be difficult to assail his credibility. Besides the edit does not push just one POV, it explains "Why some scholars include Jews and others don't" , its a mere statement of the actual facts backed up with credible sources, it's not my POV.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

woogie. I know what you are saying. You did mention prior to 1978... Immediately after the war there was absolute shock about what happened to Jewish people. It was not called the Holocaust then, but known as "the Camps" etc. However the name is not so important. The events are, whatever they are called. In the mid 1970s, these attrocities may have possibly waned in the public mind - I am not so sure though. Holocaust the TV series certainly bought the matter to the public's attention is a very effective way. It could be certain argued that the Shoah was attributed the name "the Holocaust" in the wider public mind partly as a result of the series. The series certainly had a profound impact on people at the time. It is important to keep the memory in front of peoples' mind for all time, especially after those who had first hand experience are all dead. Wallie (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Is the Holocaust Unique?

The Wikipedia Holocaust page should in theory have a NPOV presenting the full range of scholarly opinion. Our problem in a nutshell is that editors tend to push their own POV, in good faith. With regard to the uniqueness of the Holocaust there seem to be three schools of thought. The first being those like Eli Wiesel who view the Holocaust pertaining only to Jews. The second and middle of the road POV found on the website of the USHMM, which has prevailed on this page; by including other defined groups in the scope of the Holocaust. The third POV found in the depths of cyberspace includes any and all groups that they define as Holocaust victims. We need to have a better exposition on this page of the question Is the Holocaust Unique? A clear and concise presentation of the arguments backed up by reliable scholarly sources.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

History is a Point of View. History is never objective. Consequently, good historians always check into the background and biases of a secondary source's author. As editors, we bear this responsibility. The Holocaust has become contentious over the last two decades with scholars and amateur historians staking out different POVs (based on their biases) of whose mass murder qualifies as a holocaust. The best we can do is call out the author's POV and reflect the range of opinion. We should not answer whether the Holocaust is Unique; it will only interject another POV.Tobit2 (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am away from my books, but surely one of the best scholarly discussions about the uniqueness of the genocide of the Jews is in Bauer, Yehuda. Rethinking the Holocaust. New Haven: Yale University Press. 2001. I don't know of any historian that has taken issue with him, nor one who has come up with a genocide which is similar. In his address to the German Bundestag, he said: "The Holocaust has assumed the role of universal symbol for all evil because it presents the most extreme form of genocide, because it contains elements that are without precedent, because that tragedy was a Jewish one." Bauer Bundestag--Joel Mc (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Henry Friedlander takes issue with Bauer's view. I believe the clash is covered in Wikipedia.Tobit2 (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am far from my books, but I believe that H. Friedlander takes issue with including the Roma or not rather than the uniqueness issue. Personally, I find HF less than convincing as the Nazis claimed that the Roma were an inferior race but to the best of my memory never claimed that they were an evil conspiracy etc.--Joel Mc (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Jews have debated, on and off again, whether the Holocaust was unique, since at least the 1960s. I think most Jewish leaders believe that it was not unique, for obvious reasons. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Time Out, lets stop the blog and cite some sources.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Aong others, Philip Lopate, Richard Rubenstein, Michael Lerner. I am pretty sure Emile Fackenheim. Commentary magazine had an issue asking Jewish leaders about this back in the 1960s I think. Israel W. Charny, executive director of the Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide in Jerusalem, describes them as self-appointed "high priests." He strongly objects to what he calls their "fetishistic" efforts to "establish the exclusive 'superiority' or unique form of any one genocide." Slrubenstein | Talk 00:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we distill these opposing POV into a readable passage that can be inserted the article?--Woogie10w (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what the debate among Jews has to do with this. The debate among historians seems to me more relevant. I doubt the Charny was referring to Yehuda Bauer who is well-known as one of the foremost historians of the Holocaust. Bauer is expressing more than his POV, but as a historian he lists a number of characteristics which as far as he can tell are not found in any other genocides in history. That seems to me to be a rather objective definition of what is unique. It has nothing to do with ownership, exclusive superiority, nor a fetishistic effort. It is well worth reading him on the issue.--Joel Mc (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The article should focus on presenting both POV supported by reliable sources. It is not for us to decide whether the Holocaust is unique or not. --Woogie10w (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is not for us to decide that one view is more objective than another, or that an objective view is better than a subjective view. Our task is only to provide a clear account of all significant views from notable sources. For many scholars, the issue is not simply whetehr they choose to call "x" another Holocaust, or write of "x's" Holocaust, or provide a list of criteria for defining the Holocaust (that can easily get circular - once I say my criteria for identifying the Holocaust is (1) it must have started in Germany (2) it must have coincided with WWII and (3) its victims must have been Jewish then of course I end up "proving" that there was only one Holocaust ....), it involves more nuanced reflections on the nature of the Jewish Holocaust. Hannah Arendt for example concluded it did not have to do with european anti-Semitism. A controrsial view, but definitely significant, and merits more coverage here. Tikun is a reliable source; their May/June 1989 issue was dedicated to essays by significant thinkers on the Jewish Holocaust many of which addressed the issues we are discussing here. I do not have access to this magazine, but maybe one of you can get it from your library, I would think this would be a valuable source for this article too. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

ITYM Tikkun, Tikkun_(magazine)? Ronabop (talk) 05:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Certainly not the only reliable source, but also certainly one good source for significant views. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Need a category

Look at categories Category:Operation Reinhard belongs to. I think we need a category for German operations that were targeting military populations (Jewish and otherwise), not military. What do you think? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

unclear what you mean here.Mtsmallwood (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

My point is that Operation Reinhard does not belong to any category with the "operation" name in it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Genocide of Poles

"All Poles", Heinrich Himmler swore, "will disappear from the world"...(in the current article). Genocide was not limited to Jews or Roma, Poles were slated for elimination as well. Ronabop (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to have a reality check, time to brew up some nice hot coffee. Some Scholars argue that Poles and Jews were unequal victims[6]. There were no Nurnberg laws against Poles that were used to classify Jews. 90% of the Polish Jews were rounded up and killed by the Nazis, 94% of the Polish Catholics, in Poland, survived the war working for Germany. There should be no comparison of Polish and Jewish victims on the Holocaust page. We need to put the issue in a proper perspective on this page. Also it must be mentioned that there were 2 million ::German citizens of Polish ancestry living in pre war Germany who were treated as other Germans as long as they used the German language. Ethnic Poles from pre war Germany(within 1938 borders) were considered Germans in the Third Reich

Gerda Christian was in the Bunker with Hitler in 1945, Christian, Gerda, née Daranowski, born on December 13, 1913 in Berlin, since 1937 Hitler´s Secretary, until May 1, 1945 in the bunker, successful escape to West Germany.

Walter Krupinski was a top fighter ace of the Third Reich.

Erich KempkaHitler's Chauffeur

Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski was a notorious SS war criminal.

The grandfather of Donald Tusk was a soldier in the German Army during WW2.

The facts are quite clear, on the Holocaust page, one should not compare the fate of Jews and Poles--Woogie10w (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Of the top of my head I don't know about Gerda or Krupinski but both Bach-Zalewski and Tusk's grandfather were Kashubians and considered Volksdeutsche. The same was probably true of the other two. Hence, not ethnic Poles. Also, I don't know why Ronabop brought this up as the article already has a section on Ethnic Poles and other groups are included in the lead. So I don't see what the problem is. Having said that I disagree with Woogie quite a bit here - while there were no Nuremberg laws for example, they were plenty of Nuremberg-like laws. And while Ethnic Poles and Jews were unequal victims in that Jews suffered far more, that doesn't make Poles non-victims. Anyway, this part of the article is fine as is, so no need for OT discussions.radek (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The Kashubian language is closly related to Polish, Kashubs are ethnic Polish. Volksdeutsche spoke German, an unrelated language-Many Kashubians would have learned the German language in German schools prior to 1919-Woogie10w (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's how we see it and that's how it is. But that's not how the Nazis saw it - they considered Kashubians to be sort-of-Germans, hence, they didn't extend the prosecution of Poles to Kashubians (with some exceptions). There were actually various levels of "Volksdeutsche" with Ethnic Germans of Polish citizenship at the top of the list. But groups like the Kashubians or Gorale (also closely related to Ethnic Poles) could also sign up for the VD lists (to their credits the Gorale didn't do so all that much). Again, this is going off topic. But to add to your statement below, the persecution and murder of Roma was actually comparable to that of the Jews, they just constituted a smaller fraction of the overall European population and were much more of outsiders so it was less noticeable. Again, let me emphasize that I think the article is fine as is.radek (talk) 13:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

My family was lucky, they left Prussia for the US in 1886(hint you can't BS me), the term VD list would have meant something entirely different to my father who was a GI in the ETO from 1944-45.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, the point is that in general the Nazis did not see Kashubians and Prussians as Ethnic Poles.radek (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, if you were speaking Kashubian on a train Nazi Germany in 1943, you would be told to speak in German or shut up. There would be no arguments.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

<--I'm not trying to BS you and I'm not sure why you think I am. Kashubians could sign the Volksdeutsche list and get special treatment. Ethnic Poles couldn't. That's it.radek (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ronabop-When we edit this page we should not compare the Nazi genocide of the Jews to the persecution of Poles and Roma. Rhetoric aside, the actual reality was that 6% of Polish Christians perished in the war compared to 90% of the Polish Jews. When I was in Poland in 2002 I purchased a book Warszawa 1943-1944 [7] which is a collection photos taken by a German soldier who was stationed in the city in 1943. The city looked grim, the people were shabbily dressed, but life was continuing as a usual. Polish Christians were shopping, going to work, chatting and eating ice cream. The editor of the photos Malgorzata Baranowska described the niezwykla codzieennosc, in English extraordinary normality. In this book there is a photo on Mirowska street Warsaw in 1943 of two women who are clearly Roma, walking with other pedestrians. At the same time in 1943 thousands of Polish Jews were being murdered in the camps every day--Woogie10w (talk) 10:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You raised a great point Ronabop. Percentages are meaningless when intent is evident and the action began. Moreover, most people who died in the camps were not Jews. Their deaths are no less a tragedy and the plan behind their deaths, no less diabolical.Tobit2 (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

In this article we should not ignore the differences in Nazi policy, percentages are relevant because they alert the reader to the fact that Poles and Jews were indeed Unequal Victims to use the words of Israel Gutman.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Tobit, you are proposing to edit this article that describes the Holocaust as the Nazi mass murder of 17 million persons, of whom 6 million just happened to be Jews. That trivializes the Holocaust and should not be part of this article.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

To my opinion, any attempt to define the subject of the article in few words would be a trivialisation of Holocaust. Therefore, (i) it is quite necessary to state explicitly that, according to the Nazi plans (and their actual actions) European Jews were condemned to complete extermination, whereas other ethnic groups (probably, besides Roma) were not planned to be exterminated. For instance, the Poles, as well as other Slavs, were planned to be displaced, and their population was planned to be diminished; in addition, the plans existed of partial assimilation of some Poles. Therefore, it was a huge difference between the Slavs and Jews under Nazi's rule. (ii) A considerable part of Slav population was killed as a result of anti-partisan warfare: for instance, whole villages in Belorussia were being destroyed and their population murdered in 1942-44. The Poles were expelled from their best agricultural lands to provide territories for the Germans. One way or the another, these actions, despite their brutality, had some rational explanation. In contrast, persecution of Jews wasn't dictated by any military and economic needs. That is another distinctive feature of the Holocaust.
My conclusion is: one has to differentiate between deliberate mass murders, mass death of civilians as a collateral consequence hostilities and mass death due to criminal neglect. In other words, we must state that during WWII (i) Nazi planned and almost accomplished complete extermination of Jews (and, probably, Roma), and that was what people used to call "the Holocaust", and (ii) In absolute numbers, Holosaust victims were not the most numerous category of civilian killed during WWII. In connection to that, I think it make sence to mention not only the Poles and other Slavs, but also the Chinese, the most numerous category of WWII victims. However, although the "(ii)" definitely belongs to the article, the major focus should be made on "(i)".--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Chinese; I agree, but if I make such a post, it should be deleted as OR--Woogie10w (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. It is a well established fact, therefore no one can delete it. Once again, I didn't propose to include Slavs or Chinese into the Holocaust's victims category. My point is that, although the Holocaust was a unique and extreme form of genocide, its victims weren't the most numerous category of Allied civilians killed during WWII. And that fact must be presented in the separate article's section (and, probably, in the introduction).--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Paul, you need a reliable source before you can even think about posting on Wikipedia.--Woogie10w (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It may be an established fact that more Chinese people than Jews were killed in WW2, but that does not make it relevant to this article. Are we going to add "more chinese were killed" to every article about WW2 deaths? Shall we add this fact to the articles on the Siege of Leningrad, the Blitz and the Bombing of Dresden? Paul B (talk) 10:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not a Blog- basta--Woogie10w (talk) 10:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not an intelligible comment. Paul B (talk) 10:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

FYI the ultra right wing in Germany use the term “Bomben Holocaust” de:Holocaust (Begriff) when referring the Allied bombing of Germany. In public German neo-Nazis never use the term Holocaust as we understand the term , implying denial which is illegal in Germany. --Woogie10w (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Woogie10w, I don't think it would be a problem to obtain the reliable source supporting my statement, namely, that about 20 million Chinese civilians died during WWII as a result of Japanese actions. For instance, one can find the references in the "WWII casualties" article, the article you meticulously maintain and develop.
To my understanding, the major problem is that the cliché exists among the Western public that "WWII genocide = the Holocaust". As a result, form time to time, one or another editor rises the quite reasonable question about genocide of others, non Jewish ethnic groups, and proposes to include them into the definition of the Holocaust. This leads to a confusion: if we include the Poles, why don't we include the Serbs, or the Byelorussians? If we include Soviet POWs, why don't we include non-Jewish Soviet civilians? Et caetera, et caetera...
Therefore, the solution may be (i) to propose a strict definition of the Holocaust ("primarily it was an attempt to completely exterminate European Jewry") and (ii) to explain that the Holocaust was neither the only, nor the greatest WWII genocide.
The "(ii)" is needed for two reasons: because it is true, and because it will allow us to avoid inflation of the list of the Holocaust's victims.
I agree with Paul B that the phrase about killed Chinese is irrelevant to the Siege of Leningrad article. Nevertheless, it may be relevant here, because many, probably majority Western people think that the Holocaust was the major, if not the sole WWII genocide.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Pointer-Scholars of the Holocaust refrain from mentioning WW2 casualties because it trivializes the Holocaust. Prior to 1979 the Holocaust referred only to the genocide of 6 million Jews. Jimmy Carter in 1979 [8] under political pressure included another 5 million victims, without naming the groups. Currently the academic community, which is all knowing and infallible, defines these other groups as Roma, Poles, Soviet POW, the disabled and homosexuals.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Woogie10w, could you please explain me in few words, what is, to your opinion, trivialization of the Holocaust?--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of non-Jews--Woogie10w (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a strange opinion to have. One could say that that in fact trivializes the million dead non Jewish victims. I think your statement above - which points out that Jews were not just another target of the Nazis - is more on the mark. However, enough with these personal opinions. Stick to what the sources say. And the sources use the term capital-H Holocaust to refer to the murders perpetrated by the Nazis. Hence, the Chinese are not included. The genocide of Chinese by the Japanese is a separate crime. The sources also either treat the Holocaust as particular to Jews or sometimes include other groups (Roma, Poles, etc.) while noting that Nazi policy towards Jews was more extreme. And this difference in the sources is reflected in the article currently. Basically, I think the article is fine as it currently stands, no need to change anything. Again, this is based not on my personal opinion (since Wikipedia isn't about that) but what the sources say.radek (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yehuda Bauer contends that the Holocaust should include only Jews because it was intent of the Nazis to exterminate all Jews, the other groups were not to be totally annihilated Please note the following from Wikipedia:Assume good faith:--Woogie10w (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Well then Yehuda Bauer's opinion should be in this article. But other sources as well. The Poles (and Russians) were basically next on the list as the article already points out. I'm not sure what the AGF here is supposed to mean. I think you're acting in good faith. I'm acting in good faith as well. I'm saying the article should cover various aspects as reflected in the sources. Which it does already.radek (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Currently the academic community, which is all knowing and infallible, defines these other groups as Roma, Poles, Soviet POW, the disabled and homosexuals. They will sneer if you mention Russian or Chinese civilian war deaths they were mere road kill not worthy of even a footnote. If you utter a word about German civilian deaths they will become incensed, in their opinion not enough were killed. --Woogie10w (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, at this point, I honestly don't know what you are talking about.radek (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Neither do I...--Jacurek (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hint, this is all about US Politics. Pease read [9]--Woogie10w (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I looked at it and still don't know. And honestly, I don't really consider Wiki talk pages as venues for playing twenty questions. Giving people "Hints" is not a good way of communicating in this context (and it's a bit rude to boot).radek (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I can be sarcastic if I choose to do so, that is my prerogative. My point is that the current view of the Holocaust has been defined by US politicians who dictate the curriculum in American schools. The academic community toes the party line because the taxpayers cut their checks. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you. My view is that this page should tell readers what actually happened in WW2, not propaganda dished out by American politicians. This page has a narrow American POV that needs to be corrected. In my opinion, this is not at all likely. Hint, I bet my bottom dollar that 999 out of 1,000 US history teachers have never heard of the Wola massacre.Fixing this article is a lost cause--Woogie10w (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the massacre of the Polish civilians during the fierce fighting of the Warsaw Uprising has very little to do with the German plans (%90 successful) to exterminate European Jewry and murder or Germanization of all Poles. This massacre was not planned in advance.--Jacurek (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If you really belive this to be true you would delete the reference to the Wola massacre on the Holocaust page --Woogie10w (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Skapperod's Edit

I support the recent edits. They represented a significant and knowledgeable improvement. I vote from restoring them. Tobit2 (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not expect my edits to be controversial, but since they are contested by woogie, here they are in detail:

• (1) Removal of "haShoah" as an alternative name for Holocaust, instead I introduced "Shoah". The latter is used internationally, while the ha-use is limited to Israel. Also, the correct latinized spelling would have been "ha'shoah", so I introduced that spelling as the latinized Hebrew spelling behind the version that uses the Hebrew alphabet. Also, I did the same for the Yiddish term, as "churben" is not a widely known English alternative name for "Holocaust", but just the latinized spelling of the term given as Yiddish version of "Shoah".
• (2) I shifted most of a paragraph from the lead to a subsection. The paragraph was about how specific scholars have specific views on what the term Holocaust should cover. This is no lead stuff. For the lead, it is sufficient to say that some include other groups of victims beside the Jews, what groups that would be, and what their inclusion makes with the overall death toll. The detailed rationales of these scholars do not belong in the lead.
• (3) I changed some headers which did not match the content of the sections they headed.
  • (3.1): I also made a table an own subsection that was too large to be included as a floating image, there was not much space left for the narrative. Skäpperöd (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC))
• (4) I changed the order of L1 sections to match chronology. It does not make sense to have the outcome first and the process later. An overview of the outcome is already in the lead, and those who are not interested in the process but only in the death toll can jump to this section via the TOC.
• (5) I removed a section about lapanki and Polish children subject to Germanization programs. This has nothing to do with the Holocaust. There are numerous articles covering this already - each lapanki and kidnapping of Polish cildren have own articles and are prominently mentioned in all articles covering Poland during WWII. Thus, it does not need to get merged somewhere and the information is not "lost" when deleted here as totally displaced.

I understood (1) to (4) as mere style edits that should not meet with opposition, and (5) as a clear case of something too far out of the scope of the article even for WP:UNDUE being applicable.

I'd like woogie to give me some talkback what exactly his objections were, especially why he wants (5) in here? Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The USHMM includes forced Germanization in the definition of the Holocaust. read this please [10] the material stays there as is!--Woogie10w (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The USHMM does not include forced Germanization in the definition of Holocaust, at least not in the link you provided. Just because the USHMM dedicates a pamphlet to the fate of Poles during the Nazi era, it does not mean that it defines lapanki and Germanization of Polish children as part of the Holocaust. Furthermore, the USHMM pamphlet clearly separates the Jewish and Polish fate:

"In contrast to Nazi genocidal policy that targeted all of Poland's 3.3 million Jewish men, women, and children for destruction, Nazi plans for the Polish Catholic majority focused on the murder or suppression of political, religious, and intellectual leaders. This policy had two aims: first, to prevent Polish elites from organizing resistance or from ever regrouping into a governing class; second, to exploit Poland's leaderless, less educated majority of peasants and workers as unskilled laborers in agriculture and industry.

Skäpperöd (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You did not read the entire text of the link, you just skimmed it [11] As many as 4,454 children chosen for Germanization were given German names, forbidden to speak Polish, and reeducated in SS or other Nazi institutions, where many died of hunger or disease. Few ever saw their parents again. Many more children were rejected as unsuitable for Germanization after failing to measure up to racial scientists' criteria for establishing "Aryan" ancestry; they were sent to children's homes or killed, some of them at Auschwitz of phenol injections. An estimated total of 50,000 children were kidnapped in Poland, the majority taken from orphanages and foster homes in the annexed lands. Infants born to Polish women deported to Germany as farm and factory laborers were also usually taken from the mothers and subjected to Germanization. (If an examination of the father and mother suggested that a "racially valuable" child might not result from the union, abortion was compulsory.)

You have not provided any source for your POV-Without a source you are going nowhere, the material stays there as is!!--Woogie10w (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The publications of the USHMM

Sidenote: Calm down. I did not offend you, so don't offend me. I debolded parts of your post - do you want to shout at me or do you want to discuss? Just repeating "the material stays there as is!!", adding an additional "!" everytime you repeat that, is not a discussion. Of course I read the pamphlet, and the information it gave is not new to me. Just consider me the reasonable fellow editor of yours I am. Thank you.

(outdent) The question is: Does somewhere in the pamphlet the USHMM define this as part of the Holocaust? Answer - no, it did not. In fact, the only time the term "Holocaust" appears in the pamphlet is in the name of the publisher, USHMM. So is there any evidence that lapanki and Germanization of Polish children are considered to be a part of the Holocaust? You have got to provide something if you want to have this paragraph in here, this WP:BURDEN is not on me. And to second my comment above: I am all for inclusion of these tragedies in articles where it fits the context. This is already the case, both matters in question have their articles and are covered in numerous other articles, too. The scope of this article however is a different one. Skäpperöd (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The edit stays as is, I have provided a reliable source( the USHMM ) that supports lapanki and Germanization of Polish children as being be a part of the Holocaust, you have the WP:BURDEN to show that it is not so. You are trying to push your own POV without any sources, the edit stays as is. Without a source you cannot delete this material.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I have already shown that the source does not say so, provide a cite and convince the community that scholars consider lapanki and Germanization of Polish children to be a part of the Holocaust. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

scholars? USHMM is sufficient to fit the bill --Woogie10w (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

If USHMM would support your assertion, maybe. Cite where the USHMM does support you, and let's have a reasonable argument. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Lapanki were carried out both in the Ghettos and on the "Aryan" side. Here's Samuel Oliner on the subject (sorry, it's only a snippet): [12]. I could be wrong in regard to some details though.radek (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Lapanki were round-ups of people for deportation to the west for forced labour. This did certainly not take place in the ghettos - people there were not deported that way, they were deported to camps and killing fields instead. Think about it, lapanki could only happen to Poles. The snippet unfortunately does not help - though an autobiography of a Holocaust survivor and scholar, it merely states that lapanki happened (which is not disputed), but does not support woogie's assertion that they were part of the Holocaust (which is what the dispute is about). Skäpperöd (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

That was what they were mostly used for but not always. Certainly some people caught in Lapanki were sent to extermination camps. Likewise, most of the deportations from the Ghettos were organized separately in a coordinated manner. But some could've been done through Lapanki - honestly, I don't know for sure here.radek (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We cannot argue with the fact that the USHMM is a reliable source. In the link that I have posted the USHMM article Poles Victims of the Nazi Era [13] has a separate sections entitled EXPULSIONS AND THE KIDNAPPING OF CHILDREN. - FORCED LABOR AND TERROR OF THE CAMPS. The source is reliable, verifiable and clearly supports the material posted on the page.-Also see this piece from the same webpage-Daily Life for Poles Under German Occupation [14] Poland's holocaust By Tadeusz Piotrowski Univ of NH who is a well known scholar of the Holocaust lends support for the argument that the kidnapping of Polish children was part of the Holocaust [15] If a Polish Jew and a Catholic were conscripted by Germany to be a forced laborers and they both survived the war, they would be considered Holocaust victims. Victims of the Holocaust were not only the dead. This is what Skäpperöd needs to understand. Germany had to pay compensation to these folks,[16] they are also Holocaust victims.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Our POV and opinions should not be in this discussion, only the sources we can cite. You have yet to provide a source for your POV. As we say in Brooklyn, put up or shut up pal--Woogie10w (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Then cite them. Cite where they support your assertion and we don't have an argument. You are not interested in actually discussing, but only repeat what you think the sources want to imply and what you think I said or thought. I never questioned the reliability of the sources, I just showed that they don't say what you say they say. I never said that only a dead man is a Holocaust victim. I never pushed a POV, I evaluated the source you presented in regard to what it was supposed to source. I think we should take a break and await some comments - for now only on the factual and not on the behavioral issue. See below. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am traveling behind the Great Firewall of C so am being continually cut off or blocked fromn WP, but I did want to express my praise and support for Skapperod's edit. I had feared that we would never be able to clean up this messy piece and I am glad to say he seems to have done it. I can';t get involved in the issues that seem to have sprouted up until I get back to my library at the end of May. I put two "reference needed" tags in the Application of the term Holocaust to non-Jewish victims section. The footnote What Makes the Holocaust Unique?, does not substantiate the claim that "Jewish organizations say" Without ref it can be misleading as other religious groups also use the Holocaust to refer to the genocide of the Jews i.e. Presbyterian Church USA.--Joel Mc (talk) 09:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Crystal Night or Kristallnacht

I fear the new section title is not very user friendly in English. Crystal Night is often used (see Columbia Guide to the Holocaust and the German Kristallnacht is also used in English and in particular in WP. However to the best of my knowledge Reichskristallnact is seldom used in English.--Joel Mc (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I am the one who introduced Reichskristallnacht, but I have no preference what term should be used. I am most familiar with Reichskristallnacht, but I have really no idea what the most widely used English term is - if you are sure it's Crystal Night, I'd not object. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Kristallnacht is the most common name in English. Best to be guided by the actual titles of the relevant Wikipedia articles. Paul B (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Application to non-jewish victims

This section looks like propaganda rather than an encyclopedia. It is one-sided, coming off as a disingenuous attempt defend the position held by certain scholars and organizations. The section should either be re-titled, "Jewish Opinions on Why Others Should Not Be Included in the Holocaust," or actually explore the issue.Tobit2 (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Jewish Opinions Wow, you suprise me. That's going too far.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC) Father Charles Coughlin got in trouble for talking too much, my dad listened to him--Woogie10w (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Careful Woogie...trying to label people as anti-semitic won't get you too far. The section clearly states it is presenting the opinion of jewish organizations. Deal with issues or get off the page.Tobit2 (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The section certainly needs expansion in a way that as many expert sources as possible are introduced and sorted according to their stance of to what groups of victims the term Holocaust applies. A glance at previous talk page section reveals (1) that endless discussions about the scope of the Holocaust, and thus eventually the scope of this article, will only end that way; and (2) that S.L.Rubenstein, Paul B., Anewpester and many others seem to have a fairly good knowledge of what sources fall into this scope and access to a variety of those sources. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Scholarly sources are divided on the question of including non-Jews in the Holocaust. We should have a NPOV and present both sides of this argument. We are not here on Wikipedia to evaluate the sources, and then determine if non Jews are to be included in the scope of the Holocaust or not. Scholars are divided on this topic and we must present both POV. In American schools the non-Jewish victims of the Nazis are included in the scope of the Holocaust, [17]the article should reflect this reality. --Woogie10w (talk) 03:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

My own POV, is that only Jews should be condidered Holocaust victims, but my opinion does not count here, only reliable sources count.--Woogie10w (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Error in text

Date of Kristallnacht is given correctly (1938) in the heading but wrongly (1939) in the body text.89.240.108.230 (talk) 18:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you! Skäpperöd (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Lets get back to basics

There seems to be an awful lot of discussion about the persecution of Poles and other Polish issues in these discussions. Surely the focus of the Holocaust should always be on the Jews. After all, the Holocaust was directed at the Jewish population, and it was the Jews who suffered by far the most in sheer percentages killed. Wallie (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed--Jacurek (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Unknown Shoah Jewish Orphans

• See [[18]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.171 (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Jewish resistance?

I believe this section should be renamed to "Resistance" because it was not just the Jews who resisted the Nazis. Not all Polish resistance fighters were Jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.186.81 (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It is resistance related to the Holocaust which should be discussed here. The Poles resisted the Nazis also, but this was not mainly related to the Holocaust. It should also be pointed out that some Poles were involved with the persecution of Jewish people, and not all were victims, unpleasant that this concept might be to some people. Wallie (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Wallie, can you give us any examples or names of Poles "not victims" and involved with the persecution of Jews or Polish organizations "involved with the persecution of Jewish people" and the Holocaust? ...and I'm not looking for an answer as Jedwabne or Szmalcownik. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If you see the article Shoah (film), the Poles are placed in three groups, survivors, bystanders, and perpetrators. There are individuals named in this film/article. Wallie (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Wallie, you are so wrong, this is from the Shoa movie page: "Perpetrators are those who were directly involved in orchestrating the Holocaust. All of the perpetrators that Lanzmann interviews are German"

Shoah is a documentary film and there is nothing in the movie that suggests that "some Poles were involved with the persecution of Jewish people" unless we are talking about the blackmailers. There was a lot so-called bystanders or people who did not care or even people who were glad that the Jews are being removed but Poles were not involved in the Holocaust and were also victims of the Nazi German barbarity. You made some bold statements one has to be very careful about.--Jacurek (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The article should if possible reflect what happened as closely as possible. Sometimes you have to be bold and have discussions about subjects, no matter how unpleasant to confront for some people. Many groups of people were involved. Some did evil things, as they were forced to, just to survive - others had a choice. Wallie (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

11 Million Victims- Who were they?

In 1979 President Carter set up the Holocaust Commission and defined the Holocaust as the killing of 6 million Jews and 5 million others. The political-educational establishment in the US has defined the 5 million others as Poles, Soviet POW, Gays, the disabled and Roma. This is wrong in my opinion. The figure of 5 million others is comprised of the following ONE- 1.6 million deaths in Nazi camps in Germany as detailed by Eugon Kogon in The Theory and Practice of Hell TWO- 3.3 million Soviet POW deaths THREE-100,000 disabled killed in T-4. The Poles and Roma don’t belong on this page as separate groups because they are already included in the total of 1.6 million deaths in Nazi camps located in Germany. The figure of 1.6 million includes French, Germans, Czechs and Dutch along with the Poles & Roma--Woogie10w (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should lapanki and Germanization of Polish children be included in the article as part of the Holocaust ?

Paragraph in question:

A common German practice in occupied Poland was to round up at random civilians on the streets of Polish cities to be sent to Germany as forced laborers.[178]The term "łapanka" carried a sardonic connotation from the word's earlier use for the children's game known in English as "tag." Between 1942 and 1944 there were around 400 victims of this practice daily in Warsaw alone, with numbers on some days reaching several thousand. For example, on September 19, 1942, close to 3000 men and women caught in the round-ups all over Warsaw the previous two days were sent by train to Germany.[179] Additionally, between 20,000 and 200,000[180] [181] Polish children were forcibly separated from their parents and, after undergoing scrutiny to ensure that they were of "Nordic" racial stock, were sent to Germany to be raised by German families.[182] [183]

Survey: inclusion or exclusion of this paragraph?

• Exclude. This content is (a) not in the scope of this article, and (b) already prominently covered in several articles dealing with the occupation of Poland during World war II. The sources used show that these things happened, but fail to describe them as a part of the Holocaust. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Exclude. This topic has nothing to do with the scope of this article. Holocaust has a clear meaning and clearly refers to the final solution od the Jeweish question. If some people want to evoke the crimes against humanity perpetrated by the nazis during WWII I think they can write an article devoted to this topic. --Lebob-BE (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• INCLUDEThe following Wikipedia article and link support Polish children were Holocaust victims-History of children in the Holocaust#Medical atrocities and kidnapping [19]--Woogie10w (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Exclude łapanka, abstain on children. Forced labor was not part of łapanka's, and while some łapanka's were used to send victims to concentration camps, we might as well include trucks in this article, as some tracks were used to do the same thing. Whether forced Germanization was part of the cultural genocide is a more difficult question.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral on łapanka, neutral on the children - though lapankas were occasionally used to round up people for concentration camps this was not their primary purpose. Agree with Piotrus on the question of the kidnapped children. More broadly, I think the article should make it clear that the Holocaust was primarily about the Nazi's genocide of Jews but that other groups were also affected and some - but not all - sources consider the fate of other groups as part of it. Which is pretty much how it is presented now.radek (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
• Exclude. This topic is way outside the scope of the Holocaust. Sure, they may have been victims of the whole nazi system, but definitely not the Holocaust part. You could argue that ordinary Germans shot by the SS for desertion and other "crimes" were victims too. They also have absolutely nothing to do with this topic. Wallie (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC) PS: Rounding up children/prople and "Germanization" is one thing. Carrying out experiments on children is another. The abuse of Polish children is already covered, is it not? Wallie (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Extremely strong support for inclusion of kidnapping and mass murder of Polish children by Germans-as it is clear that German genocide against other nations during WW2 is considered by considerable number of sources to be part of Holocaust the acts clearly noted as genocide should be mentioned. The kidnapping and mass murder of Polish children by Germans has been judged during post-war Nuremberg Trials trials of German officials to be an act of genocide[20].

Facilities and methods used similiarily in Holocaust were used to exterminate those children considered not of German origin and thus "untermenschen" creatures by German scientitsts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_Polish_children_by_Germany#cite_note-Greifetetal-14 At Auschwitz concentration camp 200 to 300 Polish children from the Zamość area were murdered by Germans by phenol injections. The child was placed on a stool, occasionally blindfolded with a piece of a towel. The person performing the execution then placed one of his hands on the back of the child's neck and another behind the shoulder blade. As the child's chest was thrust out a long needle was used to inject a toxic dose of phenol into the chest The children usually died in minutes. A witness described the process as deadly efficient: "As a rule not even a moan would be heard. And they did not wait until the doomed person really died. During his agony, he was taken from both sides under the armpits and thrown into a pile of corpses in another room.... And the next victim took his place on the stool."[4] To trick the soon-to-be murdered children into obedience Germans promised them that they will work at a brickyard. However another group of children, young boys by the age of 8 to 12, managed to warn their fellow child inmates by calling for help when they were being killed by Germans: " 'Mamo! Mamo!' ('Mother! Mother!'), the dying screams of the youngsters, were heard by several inmates and made an indelible haunting impression on them.' "[4] Some of the children were also murdered in Auschwitz gas chambers; others died as a result of the camp conditions.[20] Note the use of German gas chambers to exterminate the Polish child "untermenschen" and poison injections. --Molobo (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Molobo, finally there is somebody on Wikipedia that will stand up to defend the Polish nation. A person who has not forgotten the crimes committed on Polish soil by Hitlers beasts.--Woogie10w (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This topic is already covered in the "Ethnic Poles" section. (Woogie, the Poles do actually seem to have quite a few defenders.) Clearly this sort of abuse is included, as some scholars agree that non Jewish people are included in the Holocaust. These cases are dicussed under this heading. Wallie (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wallie,The Nazis took the parents stood them up against the wall and shot them, if the kids just happened to have blond hair and blue eyes, they were kidnapped and sent to Germany to be Germanized. If the kids spoke in Polish they were beaten with a stick or whipped. We have three sources that include this under the Holocaust, what amazes me is that some folks around here feel neutral about this and will allow this Nazi crime to be whitewashed on Wikipedia.--Woogie10w (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A lot of this is getting down to defining the boundary of the Holocaust in the so called wider sense. You cannot even equate some of the various actions of Nazis towards the Poles. For example, the attrocities mentioned by Molobo such as "poisonous injections" are quite another matter to having Polish children being bought up in German ways. Going forward - it would probably be best to mention something about the Poles (not too many words) in the main article and make a link to a more in depth discussion in another article - maybe there exists one already. I think the fear is that the Holocaust article will go into great depth about more and more different groups of people, and this will take the attention away from the primary focus of the article - the Jews. I don't think this is anyone's intention, but it can happen very easily. Wallie (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wallie, we do not define the Holocaust, the sources do. Our POVs should not enter the discussion. In the case of Poland some sources say Poles were in the Holocaust others say no. We need to have a NPOV and present both sides, let the readers decide. In any case I have reliable sources to back up my argument, the other guy is pissing into the wind without a source to cite, nada--Woogie10w (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The contributors do decide on what goes into this article though. They can also select from many sources too. Wallie (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Does a source explicitly state that this was part of the Holocaust? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed the USHMM includes Poles kidnapped in The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, CHILDREN DURING THE HOLOCAUST [21]--Woogie10w (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify: the pararaph in question has five sources. Do the five sources explicitly use the word "Holocaust" in direct relation to the material provided? We do not want to violate WP:SYNTH. If the source from which these assertions come states that these events are part of the Holocaust and the source is reliable, I vote yes. If not, I vote no. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The USHMM Article entitled CHILDREN DURING THE HOLOCAUST [22] has a paragraph dealing with the kidnapping of Polish children. Case closed, the source is quite clear because it includes kidnapping of Polish children as part of the Holocaust, the source is reliable beyond question. There are no ifs, ands, buts or even in betweens--Woogie10w (talk) 23:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If the paragraph summarizes material in th article "Children during the Holocaust," why does it have five notes and not just one? Yoou are saying that all information in this paragraph comes from the article you cite, right? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Right, Jewish Holocaust survivors mentioned included children, not all Holocaust victims were killed, the same goes for Poles. --Woogie10w (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No, you have not answered my question: if this paragraph is drawn on information from one source, the USHM article, why then does it have footnotes for six different sources? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is surreal, people bending over backwards to trivialize Nazi crimes that are documented in black and white, sick!!--Woogie10w (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please observe WP:NPA or you could be blocked. I am not sick. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Wallie you wrote quite another matter to having Polish children being bought up in German ways time out, kidnapping is a serious crime not a misdemeanor, think about your remark--Woogie10w (talk) 22:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• • RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes There are three reliable academic sources cited that do in fact include the kidnapping of Polish children under the Holocaust. This is a blatant POV push to whitewash German crimes in Poland. --Woogie10w (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia the kidnapping of Polish children is included with the Holocaust read-History of children in the Holocaust--Woogie10w (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This from the US Holocaust Memorial article CHILDREN DURING THE HOLOCAUST In their "search to retrieve 'Aryan blood,'" SS race experts ordered hundreds of children in occupied Poland and the occupied Soviet Union to be kidnapped and transferred to the Reich to be adopted by racially suitable German families. Although the basis for these decisions was "race-scientific," often blond hair, blue eyes, or fair skin was sufficient to merit the "opportunity" to be "Germanized." On the other hand, female Poles and Soviet civilians who had been deported to Germany for forced labor and who had had sexual relations with a German man -- often under duress -- resulting in pregnancy were forced to have abortions or to bear their children under conditions that would ensure the infant's death, if the "race experts" determined that the child would have insufficient German blood. --Woogie10w (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Exclude. The article is already disproportionally formatted according to the minority view that The Holocaust should include all Nazi victims. --Anewpester (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Based on the discussions on this page I now realize why so many people have a poor opinion of Wikipedia. It is more than obvious that the many people contributing to this talk page have only a superficial understanding of the Holocaust. The level of the discussion is pathetic, sad to say the least. --Woogie10w (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you stop your constant criticism of this project and other editors please? Many of your edits are much appreciated but if you don't like it so much so why don't you just do something else for a while and come back after some cool off period.--Jacurek (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Evaluation of sources used to back up the assertion that lapanki and Germanization of Polish children were part of the Holocaust

USHMM pamphlet "Poles"

The USHMM pamphlet is dealing with the situation of Poles during the ocupation. It mentions both lapanki and forced Germanization of Polish children. Nowhere it says that they were part of the Holocaust, or that the situation of Poles in general should be described as Holocaust. The only link to the Holocaust in the pamphlet is that it is published by the USHMM. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It is qiute clear that the USHMM considers the kidnaping of Polish children & Lapaki as part of the Holocaust or else they would not have put it in the pamphlet. The source backs up what is on the page, you are trying to push your POV--Woogie10w (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

If somebody is trying to push his POV on this question it's you. The Holocaust is widely considered as the genocided of more or less six millions Jews by the nazis during WWII. And this what should appear in the article. --Lebob-BE (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC

But the article clearly lists other victims, including Poles. I am pushing the POV of the article, not my own. This is English Wikipedia, you are looking at the Holocaust from a continental European POV. Do you propose deleting the entire section on Poles? Why not use the format of German & French Wikipedia de:Holocaustor fr:Shoah--Woogie10w (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The French article fr:shoah limits itself to the final solution and so does the German one (de:Holocaust) in which I noticed this paragraph: "Weitere nationalsozialistische Massenmorde an Millionen Slawen, meist Polen und Russen, an hunderttausenden Behinderten, etwa 20.000 deutschen Kommunisten und Sozialdemokraten, 5.000 Homosexuellen und 1.200 Zeugen Jehovas zielten nicht auf die völlige Ausrottung der betroffenen Gruppen. Sie werden daher meist nicht in den Holocaustbegriff eingeschlossen". --Lebob-BE (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

klar, dann mussen wir also dieser Begriff anwenden?--Woogie10w (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Poland's Holocaust (Piotrowski T)

The book mentions the forced Germanization of Polish children, but does not say they were part of the Holocaust. Though the book is titled "Poland's Holocaust", it is subtitled "ethnic strife, collaboration with occupying forces and genocide in the Second Republic, 1918-1947", thus certainly the author does not say everything mentioned in his book ist to be understood as a part of the Holocaust. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It is qiute clear that Piitrowski considers the kidnaping of Polish children & Lapaki as part of the Holocaust or else he would not have included it in his book. The source backs up what is on the page, you are trying to push your POV--Woogie10w (talk) 10:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Woogie10w-its clear those German actions are part of Holocaust according to scholar sources--Molobo (talk) 19:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again Molobo for standing up to defend Poland--Woogie10w (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Nazis took the parents stood them up against the wall and shot them, if the kids just happened to have blond hair and blue eyes, they were kidnapped and sent to Germany to be Germanized. If the kids spoke in Polish they were beaten with a stick or whipped. What amazes me is that some folks around here feel neutral about this and will allow this Nazi crime to be whitewashed on Wikipedia.--Woogie10w (talk) 00:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

RfC closed(not yet)

Open for two weeks, no discussion in second week, no consensus for inclusion. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I realize that you closed the discussion today, but seeing as how this is now an issue at WP:ANI, more people might become aware of it and want to comment. I, for instance, think that the inclusion voices are correct. This issue is moot. The sources they provided do, in fact, support the inclusion of the claims about the polish children being kidnapped. I would like to voice my support for:

• INCLUDE Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
• INCLUDE Like Wikiwikikid, I missed this, but I'd like to add my voice to those arguing in favour of inclusion. In its Holocaust article, Britannica makes reference to the Nazi practice of kidnapping Polish children and raising them as "voluntary Aryans". I'm not sure how much I can quote and keep the right side of copyright but:

"German occupation policy especially targeted the Jews but also brutalized non-Jewish Poles. ... Germany sought systematically to destroy Polish society and nationhood. The Nazis killed Polish priests and politicians ... and kidnapped the children of the Polish elite, who were raised as voluntary Aryans by their new German parents. ..."

--MoreThings (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Amen, finally there are people on Wikipedia who are paying attention to what is going on in this article--As we say in Brooklyn, its not over until its over, extra innings--Woogie10w (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Simplified the introduction

I attempted to simplify the introduction and make it more accessible with this edit. I assume there are many watching this article, so comment away. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the edit as I do not think it improved the lede. Several pieces of information were removed. I am not really sure what the edit was intended to accomplish; can you explain? Whatever404 (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I intend to make the introduction understandable and accessible. For this article I think he goals for the first paragraph of the lede are:

• It should be written for a 12-year-old with English as a second language that has never heard of The Holocaust
• It should define what the The Holocaust was and explain the basics at soon as possible.

My changes are:

• I removed the etymology because it is less important, and it is already well described in the first section of the article. No information was lost from the article.
• Replaced the word "genocide" with "systematic killing" in the first sentence as not all reader will know what it means. I added genocide to the second sentence as it is an important word to mention and link to.
• Added "to exterminate people deemed undesirable" because the lede did not mention anything about the purpose or intentions behind The Holocaust.
• Changed "Some scholars maintain that the definition of the Holocaust should also include..." to "The term sometimes also includes" because it is shorter and detailed enough for the lede. I think the most important thing is what happened, not later definition disputes between scholars. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It should be written for a 12-year-old That's a gem, it sums up the article so well. Such a good choice of words.--Woogie10w (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I am actually not sure if you agree with me, or if you are being sarcastic. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I was just wondering the complete defintition of the Holocaust; and thats it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.241.66 (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, On Wikipedia the definition of the Holocaust is like a sandcastle you build at the beach as a child, it is posted one day and the tide comes in and washes it away and a new one gets posted the next day. Feel free to post your definition, its Wikipedia.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Any more comments on this? Otherwise I will have a go at the article intro again. --Apoc2400 (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Genocide is a term 12-year-olds should know. If they don't, well, maybe they're home-schooled or slow or whatever, but this isn't the "Simple English" Wikipedia.
• Genocide is not "systematic killing", it's "systematic killing based on arbitrary, unscientific, racist or nationalist, ideas". More specifically, the word roots are about killing off genetic groups, but the term tends to not apply to those groups. Instead, the word is used to denote the killing of "peoples" based on criteria that are often non-genetic.
• As far as "some scholars" vs. "sometimes also used", welcome to the party, try to find something that will work. We've been working on this for years. Literally. Ronabop (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

highlighting disputed information

We need to amend the reference to 6 million jews as having perished in Europe during World War II as several studies have shown the figure to be inaccurate and not feasible based on various census actually taken just prior to World War II.

Can anyone suggest how we can edit the article to ensure the reference to 6 million jews is either removed or make it clear the figure is in dispute?

Frank Lee Speaking (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is full of reliable references as to the number of Jews murdered during the Holocaust. Where are yours?--Joel Mc (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The six million number is well accepted. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

You cannot remove a reliable reference, just because you disagree with it. You can add a second reliable reference, if it disputes the figure of circa six million. The reference must be reliable, though. Wallie (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wo, time out, smells like Holocaust denial to me. Lets be clear Holocaust denial is not on our agenda here.--Woogie10w (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If you have "proof" that 6 million Jews did not die, present it here and we will consider it. I have battled Srebrenica genocide deniers for years and I am always sceptical when people come and say they have "proof" that the figure is innacurate etc. What is your proof? Do you have any? Oh, I thought so. Bosniak (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't need proof. All you need is a wikipedia reliable source.There are differences of opinion as to the number of deaths and the 'official' figure has been revised up and down more than once. The figure 6 million is after all an approximation.I would like to see the links to these studies or the comments should be removed. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC))

Scholarly consensus is about 6 million Jews, give or take a million, plus 5-12 million others, depending on the criteria used and the way of generating the numbers... is there alternate wording, or sources, you are proposing? I think we can all agree that 6 million Jews did not die in the camps (straw man), that the means to kill and dispose of 6 million in the camps (another straw man) did not exist, but the article does a pretty good job of framing the holocaust outside of those "in the camps" constraints. Since you referenced census data, do you have a source that says that less than 6 million Jews existed, or whatever you're trying to get across? Ronabop (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

• Sure there are people who claim the numbers are inaccurate. Much like people claim man hasn't landed on the moon or that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US. Regardless of whether these claims are true or false, the bottom line is that sources that meet the wikipedia standards are required. Substantiate your claims. Also, Off2riorob, these comments aren't part of the article itself, and they should not be removed until/unless there is archiving done. They need to stay for public record and in case the issue presents itself again. Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we can end this thread now. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

yep. Wikiwikikid (talk) 21:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

the introduction to this article is untrue and ridiculous. every arm of the German government was not involved with the Holocaust. Remember that they took over Europe and obviously some bigger things to worry about than Hitler's sick and twisted "final solution". CHECK THE SOURCES! JUST BECAUSE A VERY BIASED "HOLOCAUST SCHOLAR" SAYS SO DOESNT MAKE IT FACT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.90.26 (talk) 06:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Stay calm when discussing this, please. Do you have reliable sources that contradict the statement that all arms of Nazi Germany's bureaucracy were involved in the Holocaust? Fences and windows (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Berenbaum source states "The goal of annihilation called for participation by every arm of the German bureaucracy", which is not exactly the same thing as "every arm ...participated." You are obviously unlikely to find a source which says "not every arm participated" - it might say Ministries W,X, Y & Z took part, for example, but it wouldn't directly contradict the current statement. --hippo43 (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The scholars are not biased in my view. You should read carefully what Hippo has said. "Called for participation" sets out the intentions of the hierarchy (Hitler and his deputies), and does not mean that German bureaucrats carried out these directives. In fact, it is documented that some Germans actually obstructed the whole process. I believe you think that scholars are trying to present every German in a bad light. This is not the case. The scholars are attempting to find out what actually happened, and who was actually involved, in an unbiased way. I admit this is difficult, if the scholar is Jewish. However, these guys are professionals and try their best to remain objective, as we all must. Wallie (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Soviet Civilians in the lede

"Soviet civilians" is used to link to Generalplan Ost - this should be changed to Slavs, since it covers many non soviet peoples. 93.96.148.42 (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Just change it, if you establish the wording is wrong (supported by a citiation is better - I'm sure there are plenty around). You could say "Soviet Civilians and other Slavs". Wallie (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Auschwitz I has exhibits (hair, gas tins, etc.) not Auschwitz II

This is a minor correction to a photo that needs to be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AddQuality (talk • contribs) 12:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Are Poles Holocaust Victims ?

User:Skäpperöd wrote: or that the situation of Poles in general should be described as Holocaust.--

Skäpperöd, Do you propose deleting the entire section on the Poles? ----Woogie10w (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The second comment was not made by me.

The first quote is out of context, I wrote about what the USHMM in the paper did not say.

I commented in the section below on what should be included and how. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

In 1979 President Carter set up the Holocaust Commission and defined the Holocaust as the killing of 6 million Jews and 5 million others. The political-educational establishment in the US has defined the 5 million others as Poles, Soviet POW, Gays, the disabled and Roma. This is wrong in my opinion. The figure of 5 million others is comprised of the following ONE- 1.6 million deaths in Nazi camps in Germany as detailed by Eugon Kogon in The Theory and Practice of Hell TWO- 3.3 million Soviet POW deaths THREE-100,000 disabled killed in T-4. The Poles and Roma don’t belong on this page as separate groups they are already included in the total of 1.6 million deaths in Nazi camps in Germany, separate from the death camps in Poland.The figure of 1.6 million includes French, Germans, Czechs and Dutch along with the Poles.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The Poles should also be considered holocaust victims because the Majority of Poles were Jews. Also, the Nazis treated everyone from eastern Europe as scum and subsequently killed them as well. It should be stated that the holocaust was the mass killing of Jews, and Eastern Europeans. (Konnow) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.246.93.243 (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Although the Nazis occupied Poland, the Poles acquiesed and actively assisted with the Nazi confiscation of Jewish property, the handing over, and the deportation of Jews. While typically the populace of an occupied country will do anything to undermine the occupier, in the case of the holocaust. With rare exception, the Poles' hatred for the Jews clearly motivated them to side with the Nazis in any matter concerning Jews despite the occupation.pikipiki (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

can someone fix this link

The proper source for this reference - 230. ^ Hancock, Ian. Jewish Responses to the Porajmos (The Romani Holocaust), Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, University of Minnesota. - should be http://chgs.umn.edu/histories/victims/romaSinti/jewishResponses.html Thanks.--96.42.47.21 (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

suggested alternative

Since scholars do differ on what is the definition of the Holocaust, only Jews or all victims of Nazi genocide, perhaps a statement below the Victims-Non-Jews section to clarify this would be helpful and allow removing the troublesome "sometimes" statement which might easily be seen as diminishing the experience of non-Jewish victims. Something like this:

Non-Jews

Scholars differ on whether the definition of the Holocaust should also include the millions of other non-Jewish victims of Nazi genocide.

Slavs

continue text as current

The point is thus made in NPOV fashion and without labeling these groups as apparent "sometimes" victims of the Nazis in the header. Markhh (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• i like it... Wikiwikikid (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable. --AuthorityTam (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• It works for me. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I don't see any votes against, so I will make the change. Markhh (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the article looks a lot better now.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

JEHOVAH WITNESS DEATHS found a more accurate number by the founder of the Watchtower Historical Archives-1490 deaths, not 2500-5000 http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a747700584&fulltext=713240928 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.59.35 (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that the sidebar does include 'other victims' (without caveat), and, more importantly, that there is no umbrella article in Wikipedia for 'Nazi genocide' - that just redirects to the Holocast page - would it not be a little less offensive to the millions of non-Jews who died to be recognised as fellow human beings who suffered without insulting words like 'other' tacked on to the heading? Though clearly far more Jews suffered and the Nazis were far more dedicated to destroying the Jewish people, I am sure no-one wants to paint other murders as any less murderous. Wouldn't it be better for either all groups to be put together in the sidebar, or, since the word 'Holocaust' does have Jewish religious connotations, at least that a more evenly discussed 'Nazi genocide' page be set up? I'm sure this has already been discussed at great length, but nothing seems to have been done - and of course, due to the large number of potential vandals associated with such a potential topic, it is impossible to make any alterations this end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.111.28 (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is a nice report on the oldest male surviver who is a JW. Wonder if this could go in the section. [23]

I edited the article to read "genocide....of Jews and others" but was reverted. Hadn't realised this had already been covered on talk page. I always thought the Shoah included the gypsies, homosexuals, and others who were murdered. Beganlocal (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Gay Men

This article has changed. Gay men are now at the bottom of the page and they are "sometimes" Holocaust victims. They were Holocaust victims, this page is homophobic--170.170.59.138 (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

They are sometimes identified as such, sometimes not. There was persecution, but no attempt to systematically murder homosexuals. The majority of German homosexuals were never even imprisoned. Paul B (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't consdider the article Homophobic. The word sometimes is a poor use of English, it is just plain awkward. Also I reccomend the book The Pink Triangle by Plant. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hitler was a gay. So how can he order to kill gays? [24] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.43.152 (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hypocrisy is well-documented human trait. RHelg80 (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Holocaust

The Holocaust was the extermination of the Jews and other people whom Hitler considered inferior. It took place from 1933 to 1945. Millions of people were murdered, half of them being Jews. When Hitler took over control of Germany, everything changed. Hitler was very against the Jews.Hitler , in an attempt to establish the pure Aryan race, decided that all mentally ill, gypsies, non supporters of Nazism, and Jews were to be eliminated from the German population.” His followers, who were the soldiers in the camps, were called Nazis. They did all killing that Hitler wanted done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scuduwump (talk • contribs) 23:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• The Schutzstaffel (SS or ) ran the camps.
• "Regular Nazi's" like German citizens and low ranking party members had no idea for many years that mass murder was happening.

Billymuscles (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

People who claim the holocaust never happened

Note: I DO know the holocaust really happened. I think the many standing concentration camps and photos of the atrocities that went on within them are proof enough of their existence.

That said, there is a vocal movement stating that it didn't really happen, and I'm wondering where I could find an objective (not "because they're idiots" or "because they're in denial") voice that explains their viewpoints so I can understand *why* people think this.

thanks.

74.47.147.68 (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You might try Holocaust denial. You probably wont be able to find a coherent description of their viewpoints, because they are not too coherent to begin with, and often are only defined in the negative (as in "detail X cannot be true because of scientific misunderstanding Y, therefore the Holocaust did not happen and the Jews deserved it!"). My personal opinion is that "because they're idiots" is a pretty good model. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

haha, you are correct, stephan... Wikiwikikid (talk) 14:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

People who deny the Holocaust should be directed to Oskar_Gröning of the Schutzstaffel
Billymuscles (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

World War II persecution of Serbs was NOT part of the Holocaust

• Nazis were not involved (anymore than in anti-partisan opertions elsewhere - and partisans were of all nations).
• Nazis actually had a Serbian puppet state (persecuting Jews, with their own Serbian Waffen-SS formations). Just like the Croats.

And you want to compare the Croat-Serb (notice the lack of German interest in this) ethnic conflict to Shoah? It's ridicalous. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, and about this "The USHMM reports between 56,000 and 97,000 persons were killed at the Jasenovac concentration camp[73][74] However, Yad Vashem reports 600,000 deaths at Jasenovac.[75]" Guys, guys. They just relied what the Yugoslav (Serb dominated, Belgrade-based) government told them! It's like saying that "however" Polish communists said 4 million people died at Auschwitz. It's just not serious. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Btw, only Auschwitz (1.1 million or so) and Treblinka (850,000) had more than 600,000 victims. If you think a bunch of Croat fascists in their ramshack camp would beat the professional Germans and their industrial killing in effeciency, I have no further questions. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 00:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and of course the Croats killed many thousands of Jews and Gypsies - THIS was German supported. I hope you can see the difference. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the Germans were (directly) involved in hundreds of wholesale village massacres in Belarus and in Ukraine, yet we classify it as simply "German war crimes" here (on Wikipedia), as Generalplan Ost was about something more and this was ad-hoc while trying to eradicte the partisan threat. --Ostateczny Krach Systemu Korporacji (talk) 08:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Length

This is now 187 kb long, and very hard to load. It needs to be cut back. Please don't add any more. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Trimming the Holocaust template

Comments appreciated here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Quote

We should add a quote. like Eisenhower's: "Boys, now you know why we're fighting." --LandonJaeger (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Holocaust side bar - Error

I don't know how it can be edited but the side bar for the Holocaust - has a glaring mistake:

Concentration camps were not death camps and death camps were not Arbeitslager. However the side bar makes no distinction....

Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka and Majdanek (initially founded as a concentration camp but a death camp for most of its operation) should have their own section: Extermination Camps (or Centers)

Likewise Mittelbau-Dora and Ebensee concentration camp should be included but noted as work camps.

I think it would remove the ambiguity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.127.39 (talk) 11:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Selection

Is there a reason why the "Selection" image appears twice in the article? Crum375 (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Massacre, nazi-genocide or nazi-genocide of Jews?

There appear to be three definitions of 'holocaust':

• Any great slaughter or massacre
• Specifically the genocide by the Nazis
• Even more specifically the genocide of the Jews by the nazis

Now I don't really care very much which of the three this article is about, but it should make up its mind. Ideally, there should be a separate article for each. (Which would also be a partial solution to the article being too long.) I don't know if there is enough material for the first definition, although that could contain the (main) discussion about what the word means. But there certainly is for the last two definitions. Also note that Holocaust victims is about the second definition, whereas this article is mostly (but not exclusively!) about the third definition, which adds to the confusion. Actually, that article might be a good starting point for an article in the second definition.
This will lead to the question what the three articles should be called, but that is secondary to which articles there should be. Not being a native English speaker, I don't have the vocabulary in my head, so I'll leave that to others.
Finally ,there is the question of how this should be presented. Should 'holocaust' be a disambiguation page or should it start with one of the three proposed articles? However, that is also secondary to the main question which articles there should be. DirkvdM (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Other note: Given "political activists" are listed. Shouldn't there be a death toll? They were the group that had the highest survival rate in concentration camps but that doesn't say much. I mainly find it strange to list them, but ommit their death toll in the table or make any mention on how many people simply died for having signed up for the wrong party line. When the article is divided this might be addressed as well. 84.154.12.254 (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)