Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Distinctive features

I propose that section 2 on the distinctive features of the Holocaust should be moved down after the details on the events of the Holocaust because it makes historical sense. The distinctive features form a segment involving an analysis of the history of events and come about after we learn of the event itself. A new reader will not appreciate the distinctive features fully without understanding what actually happened.

The argument against this is that the Holocaust is so distinct that it is identified by its distinctive features. This is itself a subject of some debate that I do not intend to wade into. However, giving a distinctive features section priority might give readers the incorrect impression that there is a consensus that the Holocaust was a horror in a class of its own. My suggested solution is to include other views on the Holocaust's uniqueness (or at least a link to the articles on historical debates on the Holocaust), as well as moving it down the article.

In a Class of its Own by Norman Geras is a useful overview of the distinctiveness debate. Kraikk (talk) 04:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No section for "CONTROVERSY"?

I find this rather odd, that there is no mention of anything of the sort, like actual numbers especially JEWS killed, and the methods and causes of death. And im not talking about revisionism or "holocaust denial", but of the fact how did people die, cause of criminal neclect and lack of food and medical supplies, lack of sanitation at at the camp, or by "systemtic gassings" etc, also of the not the OFFICIAL JEWISH DEATHTOLL at Aushwitzh has been adjusted down from 6 million down to most recent 1.0 to 1.1 million accepted TODAY.

Also of EINSATZGRUPPEN, this "organisation" was of 4 units of "battalion size" wiki says 600 to 1000 strong (reality 200 too 700?) that these killed another 1,5 million JEWS alone, nevermind all the comminist and such, and the partisans they fought, now if we take an average of 3000 people for the organisation that alone makes 500 jews executed per head, believable?, i do not think so. Just some things that need to be addressed in the article i feel.

Also i have this feeling that they have counted every JEW killed in this war as a "holocaust victim", never mind many of them no doubt, died "in war" like artillery fire on cities, towns, villages, etc, in air raids, of starvation and illness like in Stalingrad, Leningrad etc and in ranks of different armies, like especially US and USSR who's armed forces included both hundreds of thousands of Jews. All in all, people dead in this fassion i think cannot be claimed as victims of a "holocaust", lest you count whole affair of ww2 as one global holocaust which it really was, but on this there really isnt a one responssible and not just a one victim cause even Germany suffered horribly with millions of both civilians and soldiers dead, with many losing their freedom for up to ten years (POW's in UK and USSR) with people dying of sickness and hunger to the 1950's in Soviet camps and Germany proper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.154.204.152 (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You may want to read this page and this one, for starters. The bottom line is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which summarizes what published reliable sources have said about its topics. It is not an online forum where everyone posts what they think, or what they've heard, or what makes sense to them. In other words, if you can find reliable published sources (for this specific article, we prefer high quality mainstream scholarly sources such as historians who specialize in the Holocaust), and you find that they add new information, feel free to add them. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe the overwhelming consensus is that the Holocaust is a non-controversial fact. Detractors who take the opposite view are more accurately termed "denialists." Because, by nature, their views are wildly divergent from mainstream understanding of the event, giving denialists a section on the main Holocaust page would be adding disproportionate weight to their claims. This page is about the Holocaust, necessarily not about every stupid thing anyone's ever said about it. Mainstream historians disagree, and that's why there are ranges for things like death tolls, and different notions presented regarding the complicity of German institutions versus extreme acts of villainy among Nazi leaders. You're not going to get anywhere by parsing something like this, and the talk page isn't a soapbox to argue a position not only held by very few, but actually specifically rejected by very many. You're just going to crush your credibility, making it highly unlikely that any edit you ever make to this article will survive revision.69.94.192.147 (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no controvery, as such. However debate about details, such as the numbers killed, should be permitted. At present in many countries people run the risk of imprisonment for even trying to discuss these things. That is surely controversialJohnC (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a complete misunderstanding of the law existing in countries like France, Germany, Belgium and others. Scientific discussions about the numbers of people killed is cleraly allowed. Otherwise books from historians, like Hiller, for instance, who announces figures inferior to the 6 milliosn would be prohibited which is clearly not the case. Of course such a discussion on the figures is clearly differnet from statements like "the nazi have not killed more that a few hundred thousand Jews and they did not use gaz chamber to do it" (Faurisson) which are aimed by teh laws existing in some euroepan countries. --Lebob-BE (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Taking Eichmann's word for it?

The article states: "The figure most commonly used is the six million cited by Adolf Eichmann, a senior SS official..." Doesn't this seem a little weird, to take the word of a top Nazi at face value? Especially considering that Rudolf Hoess was blackmailed by the Soviets into signing a false confession about figures at Auschwitz (sorry no reference on-hand at the moment).

Also, do anyone know why there's such a discrepancy in numbers of German Jews who survived (and/or didn't) from Wikipedia to About.com's figures? (http://history1900s.about.com/library/holocaust/bldied.htm) They both claim to cite, among others, Lucy Dawidowicz, but vary *widely*. (The former lists 210,000 out 240,000 killed, the latter 142,000 out of 565,000--does anyone have a copy of it perhaps?) Historian932 (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't deny the systematic murder of six million Jews!!! Beganlocal (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not? There is no reason why numbers cannot be discussed. I have long wondered why we are not allowed to discuss the Holocaust in historiological terms. Why is it that it is regarded as tantamount to being a Nazi to even want to discuss facts. Is it that there are vested interests who are afraid of the truth?JohnC (talk) 08:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The number of six million was already mentioned by one of the accused as the numbet that was reported. However, they had reason to keep the mentioned number as low as possible. The reported number did not include the unregistered systematic killings of Jews or populations with a high proportion of Jews in the occupied Soviet Union, nor did it include the killings after the last reports to German government. So, one can guess that the number of six million is much too low. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robvhoorn (talk • contribs) 10:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

There in fact is no reference for About.com figures. It refers to Lucy Dawidowicz for additional figures. Her's to the best of my knowledge are the most comprehensive and still tend to be used although there may be adjustments since she wrote the book. She certainly didn't take "Eichmann's word for it".--Joel Mc (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Source needed for Latvians as participants at extermination camps

The article as written states that Latvians acted as personnel at extermination camps. I am unaware of any source that states this. I believe there is evidence that Latvians were attempted to be used to suppress the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. Certainly within Latvia, Latvians acted as guards at the Riga ghetto, and carried out large numbers of murders through the Arajs Kommando. To say that they also formed a significant part of the personnel at extermination camps is is a rather different factual statement and requires some support, particularly because although there were concentration camps in Latvia, no extermination camp was located in that country. Mtsmallwood (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Article length

This article is so long that it is difficult to use, and difficult to check and source facts (see my note above as just one example.) In an effort to address this, I cut down the Einsatzgruppen section by transferring to separate articles that already exist the following:

• Certain details about the organization and commanders of the Einsatzgruppen;
• Most of the discussion about Babi Yar.
• The entire paragraph about Bogdanovka I moved to its already existing article, which until then had been extremely brief and unsourced. Note that there is no statement that the Bogdanovka murders were related to the Einsatzgruppen in the article, yet they are placed under that heading in the article. In fact these were part of the much larger series of mass killings in Transnistria which are sometimes called the Odessa massacres. The extent of any involvement of Romanian forces in these killings remains a highly controversial topic to this day, another fact justifying detailed treatment in separate articles.
• The material that was removed from the Einsatzgruppen section of this article remains in the articles to which it was transferred, and now the main article essentially repeats material in particular articles.

Now all these changes have been reverted, but without any consideration of the issues about article length or relevance raised above, or, apparently, review of the articles to which the material was transferred. This article used to be GA rated, now it's not, and I suggest one of the reasons may be the constant inclusion of more and more material that should be in separate articles. Furthermore, a huge article such as this one starves the specific articles of material and basically defeats wikiness by lumping too much in one place. Mtsmallwood (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the article is long. But the way to fix that is to gradually move detailed content into sub-articles, while leaving the essential information in the main article. For example Babi Yar was the most notorious massacre of Jews in the Soviet Union, and a primary example of the Death Squads' actions. By mass removal of that pertinent content, we are stripping the Holocaust article of its key elements. What will be left is just a boring list, or an outline, not a captivating story. So the process has to be carried out carefully and thoughtfully, not by wholesale blanking of sections. Crum375 (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The nature of your perspective scares me. While assuming good faith, it does appear that you have an agenda beyond making an encyclopaedic article. Appeals to emotion have no place here, and this is especially true for articles about genocide. Whether the article becomes a "boring list" is irrelevant - it is not proper to have an agenda of making it a "captivating story" either. The process needs to be careful and thoughtful for the right reasons - creating an encyclopaedia entry - not for the stirring up of emotions or other reasons. Beganlocal (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sure what "scares" you. That I prefer an important article to be interesting to read, as opposed to a long linked list of times and events? As far as I know, this article is not a WP:list article, and therefore needs to have attractive prose style, and to cover the important events. Removing wholesale content, such as the most notorious massacre of Jews in the Soviet Union, and leaving behind a link, does not serve that purpose. The issue is not "emotions", it's covering the important topics with an attractive, readable prose. Crum375 (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is Babi Yar more important or "well-known" than, for instance, 9th Fort or Rumbula massacre? Take the Rumbula situation, where 25,000 were killed in two days, by the way, also by Friedrich Jeckeln. Barbara Bush laid a wreath at the memorial there 60 years later -- is that a measure of being well known? Is Rumbula less important, less "well known"? Who can say? There are no metrics. Instead, facts should be reported, in a usable way that takes advantage of the wiki format. Also, you have not addressed the other issues beyond Babi Yar that I raised in my explanation. For example, do we need a list of all the Einsatzgruppen commanders in this particular article? What about the Bogdanovka situation? That doesn't appear to be related to the Einsatzgruppen at all. I should note also that the Einsatzgruppen are described as part of the "Origins of the Final Solution" by Professor Browning, in a complete book on the topic by that title. So there is good historiographical precedent for treating the Einsatzgruppen as a separate topic from the Final Solution.Mtsmallwood (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The simplest and most obvious "metric" is number of victims per single "operation": 33,771 in Babi Yar, vs. 25,000 for Rumbula, and 5000 for 9th Fort. If you use Google as a rough guideline for "notability", "Babi Yar" -wikipedia has 122,000, Rumbula -wikipedia 95,600, and 11,800+729 for "ninth fort" or "9th fort" +lithuania, respectively. Google Books comes up with 1,153, 548, 55+313 for the three (9th Fort without the -lithuania picks up street names). There are also sources who say that Babi Yar is the best known massacre. And if you are still not convinced, here is what the Encyclopedia Britannica says: "Baby Yar became the symbol of the first stage of killing during the Holocaust and of the massacres by the Einsatzgruppen (German: 'deployment groups')—the mobile killing units." Crum375 (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Multiple problems with Death Squad (Einsatzgruppen) section

There are a number of errors, unsourced statements of "fact", and irrelevant material in the The Holocaust#Death squads (1941–1943). My thesis, outlined above, is that the length of this article (189kb) discourages fact checking. I will be specific about the major problem areas in the Death Squad section of the article:

Claims of inherently more antisemitism in Eastern Europe

As written, the article now states:

In these territories, there were fewer restraints on the mass killing of Jews than there were in countries like France or the Netherlands, where there was a long tradition of tolerance and the rule of law, or even Poland where, despite a strong tradition of antisemitism, there was considerable resistance to Nazi persecution of Polish Jews. In the Baltic states, Belarus, and Ukraine, native antisemitism was reinforced by hatred of Communist rule, which many people associated with the Jews.

Criticism: This is a very broad and unsourced generalization. Sources support the fact that there were people in, say, the Baltic States who assisted the Nazis and who, at least in Lithuania and Latvia, actually carried out large numbers of murders, see Arajs Kommando. Bad as this was, the article overstates the case. Is it really true that a country such as, say, Latvia, was more antisemitic in 1941 than a country like the Netherlands for example, where the native police actively assisted in the identification, sequestration, and arrest of the Jews. Yet in German-allied Hungary, until the German occupation in 1944, the Jews remained essentially safe, as they were protected by the Horthy regime. Poland is itself a special case, particularly in Galicia and the complex interaction between and among the Poles, the Ukrainians, and the Jews is far more complicated than the single sentence here can ever convey. Even the Nazis reported that that, at least in the Baltic States, they were having trouble stirring up anti-Jewish actions in the city of Riga. See for example Burning of the Riga synagogues for some details on that topic. In any case, some sources are needed and there's none now.
Revision. With no response after 10 days, unsourced material deleted and replaced with sourced paragraph.03:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Erroneous separation of Wehrmacht from killing operations

As written, the article now states:

Despite the subservience of the Army high command to Hitler, Himmler did not trust the Army to approve of, let alone carry out, the large-scale killings of Jews in the occupied Soviet territories.

Critcism: Unsourced and potentially misleading. Einsatzgruppen were actually organized by Reinhard Heydrich. This gives the impression that the Wehrmacht had nothing to do with these killings. There is good evidence that the Wehrmacht was heavily involved in all kinds of killings of civilians. See for example War crimes of the Wehrmacht. Liepaja massacre gives a good sourced example of Wehrmacht (German Navy in this case) involvement in Einsatzgruppe mass shootings of Jews in 1941. Really, what happened was that the Army leaders made a cynical deal that they would look the other way while Himmler committed any and all possible crimes behind the front line. Gerald Reitlinger makes this point in SS - Alibi of a Nation.

Inclusion of extensive material unrelated to Einsatzgruppen

As written, the article now states:

In December 1941, a few cases of typhus broke out in the Bogdanovka concentration camp in Transnistria, where over 50,000 Jews were held. A decision was made by the German adviser to the Romanian administration of the district and the Romanian District Commissioner to murder all the inmates. The Aktion began on December 21, and was carried out by Romanian soldiers and gendarmes, Ukrainian police and civilians from Golta, and local ethnic Germans under the commander of the Ukrainian regular police, Kazachievici. Thousands of disabled and ill inmates were forced into two locked stables, which were doused with kerosene and set ablaze, burning alive all those inside. Other inmates were led in groups to a ravine in a nearby forest and shot in the neck. The remaining Jews dug pits with their bare hands in the bitter cold, and packed them with frozen corpses. Thousands of Jews froze to death. A break was made for Christmas, but the killing resumed on December 28. By December 31, over 40,000 Jews had been killed.

Criticism: This by its terms has nothing to do with the Einsatzgruppen, see bold type. What is needed is an article on the highly important topic of the Holocaust in Romania. There is at least one important and readily available work which could form some of the basis for this:

• Ioanid, Radu, The Holocaust in Romania: The Destruction of Jews and Gypsies Under the Antonescu Regime, 1940-1944, Ivan R. Dee, 2000 ISBN 1566632560
  

Revision: With no response after 10 days, the material has been deleted from The Holocaust but remains at Bogdanovka.Mtsmallwood (talk) 03:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced material on numbers killed and establishment of death camps

As written, the article now states:

By the end of 1941, however, the Einsatzgruppen had killed only 15 percent of the Jews in the occupied Soviet territories, and it was apparent that these methods could not be used to kill all the Jews of Europe. Even before the invasion of the Soviet Union, experiments with killing Jews in the back of vans using gas from the van's exhaust had been carried out, and when this proved too slow, more lethal gasses were tried. For large-scale killing by gas, however, fixed sites would be needed, and it was decided—probably by Heydrich and Eichmann—that the Jews should be brought to camps specifically built for the purpose.

Criticism: Again, no source given for the very specific claim that only 15% of Jews had been killed. Where does this come from? Certainly in Latvia the percentage was more like 95%. (See Wannsee conference, where it was reported that only 3,500 Jews were left alive in January 1942. In addition, this paragraph glazes over the decision, apparently reached in October 1941, according to Professor Browning, to fully implement the Final Solution, that is, to construct the extermination camps. Also, where is the evidence that Heydrich and Eichmann "probably" made the decision to build the concentration camps. I think it quite unlikely that Eichmann made any decision at that level. Heydrich maybe, but what about Hitler, Himmler, Goering and Goebbels? Need some sourcing here for statement that implies, apparently, that they were out of the loop, especially since the very next paragraph says that it was Himmler who ordered construction of Auschwitz.

Finally, what is a discussion of the construction of Auschwitz doing under the heading of Einsatzgruppen? Mtsmallwood (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Revision: After ten days with no response, (a) deleted the unsourced paragraph and (b) moved the following paragraph, containing sourced material on the construction of Auschwitz to Auschwitz concentration camp.Mtsmallwood (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Is is possible to define "holocaust" in a way that respects The Holocaust and allows us to use the term for other events going forward?

The traditional definition of holocaust (pre 1935) was "A great or complete devastation or destruction, especially by fire". This does not reflect the modern usage very well. Most modern definitions either limit it to a uniquely Jewish experience that cannot be related to history going forward or they are badly offensive to anyone who was affected by The Holocaust. There are many horrific tragedies in history, but we need tools in our language to define something of the magnitude and impact of The Holocaust. Definitions like "large-scale, systematic killing of members of an ethnic group" create several problems. What is "large scale", what are the boundaries of an "ethnic group"? Historically, people have exploited these ambiguities to include everything that affects them into the definition, rendering it useless and insulting to people affected by The Holocaust.

The Holocaust was different because it was such a massive event that it changed the way people interacted, including those not directly affected. Even the act of denying The Holocaust is a concession to the importance of this event on history. Eleven million civilians were systematically killed!

In all of WWII, some 50 million people died. This was bigger than The Holocaust, but these were soldiers killed in warfare, and the implications and impact on humanity were very different. The African slave trade saw some 12 million people captured as slaves. This is a similar magnitude as The Holocaust, and had a similarly profound impact on history, but these people were not rounded up to be killed. Hence, the slave trade was a similarly important tragedy, but it was a different kind of tragedy. In the Rwandan masacres, 500-800 thousand people were killed and in Bosnia Hertzegovina, 200-400 thousand were killed. These were horrific tragedies that shared many similarities to The Holocaust, but they were so much smaller in magnitude that they did not have any of the impact on humanity. It is not possible to use the word "holocaust" to describe any of these events without trivialising The Holocaust in a way that causes real pain and suffering for those who were affected by it.

I am teaching a class in ethics and my class has proposed the following definition for consideration:

holocaust: The systematic killing of more than 5 million civilians

This gives full respect to people who were affected by The Holocaust and also provides a simple criteria to apply it to other events in history. While every human death is a tragedy, and an important part of civilisation is the constant struggle to minimise suffering in the world, I hope that we will never have cause to use this word again to describe any other event in history. Lennyb (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't redefine a word, and we can't either - all our statements, definitions and so on are based on reliable sources - to redefine such a thing would be original research. Your definition fails on several points though - firstly, Holocaust was used during the cold war to refer to nuclear extermination, something your definition doesn't cover. Secondly, a holocaust is also a burnt offering. Thirdly I'd point you towards the Armenian Genocide, also known as the Armenian Holocaust, in which less than five million people were killed in a non-systematic way. Fourthly, your definition implies that any killing of more than 5 million civilians in a systematic way is a holocaust - I've never heard Stalin's Great Purge described as a holocaust, or the Khmer Rouge killings. 02:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Your definition does not work at all. As if a certain number sets the definition is silly. If someone kills four million it is not a holocaust? Four mill to two is a tragedy? Then its merely a unit of measurement, and thats pretty damn disrespectful.

A better word to clarify would be genocide, as many things are called genocide when they're only ATTEMPTED genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.252.234 (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

what photo for lede section? I believe that the train platform picture does not capture the concept well enough

Hi, I replaced the photo of Jews at a train station with a photo of Dachau inmates that I argue more immediately conveys the concept of the Holocaust. The photo of Jews standing in line on a railway platform is of course an important photo, in that the Jews are being divided up into groups (labour camp VS. gas chamber). However, I argue that given that the goal of the lede is to provide a standalone introduction to the subject, it may be desirable to have a photo that more directly captures the concept. While the image that I proposed is difficult to look at (Jews from Dachau who were killed), I feel that it is captures the concept of the Holocaust in a more immediate fashion than the "Jews on railway platform" picture.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Comprehension

Having just seen the The Reader (film), I see that The Reader article's introduction states that the book "deals with the difficulties which subsequent generations have in comprehending the Holocaust.."

Reading this, it occurred to me that "difficulties.. in comprehending the Holocaust" - Holocaust comprehension perhaps (or rather attempts thereof) - could itself be an article about how different people try their best to understand the meaning of human sin and suffering within this particular context. -Stevertigo 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two definitions of the Holocaust

There are two definitions of the Holocaust. 1. The Holocaust (from the Greek ὁλόκαυστον (holókauston meaning sacrifice by fire, massive destruction by fire, burnt offering): holos, "whole" and kaustos, "burnt"), also known as The Shoah (Hebrew: השואה meaning great disaster), Latinized ha'shoah; Yiddish: חורבן, Latinized churben or hurban[2]) is the term generally used to describe the genocide of approximately six million Jews during the Holocaust era, 1933-1945, a program of systematic state-sponsored extermination by Nazi Germany, under Adolf Hitler, its allies, and collaborators.[3]

2. Some scholars maintain that the total number of Holocaust victims would be between 11 million and 17 million people,[5] inclusive of six million Jews, and millions of non-Jews/Gentiles/Christian people labeled “undesirable,” “enemies of the state,” or “subhuman.” Some were Holocaust victims because of WHO they were, and their perceived "racial inferiority," such as the Jews, the Christian (mainly Catholic) Poles (ethnic Poles – Slavs to be slaves), the Romani (Gypsies), Soviet civilians, Soviet prisoners of war, people with disabilities (the physically and mentally challenged), the Afro-Germans or German “Blacks,” and the African-American and American Jewish soldiers. Other groups were persecuted on political and behavioral grounds - because of WHAT they did, such as the homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other political and religious opponents (Communists, Socialists and trade unionists).[4] Many of these individuals died as a result of incarceration and maltreatment.”

At the center of the Holocaust stood the Shoah, Hebrew- term for the genocide of the Jews (the Germans use the troubling term ‘Judenvernichtung,’ German term for ‘destruction of the Jews,’ same term which Nazis used. ” Sho’ah is used to describe the almost complete destruction of the European Jewish communities, and the murder of approximately six million Jews (half of Europe's Jewish population, the highest percentage of loss of any people in World war II), who lived in a country at the time when it was under Nazi regime, under Nazi occupation, or under the regime of Nazi collaborators - from France in the west to the Soviet Union in the east, and from Latvia in the north to French North Africa and Italian Libya in the south. “It was the intentions of the Germans and their collaborators to rid the earth of its Jewish population ... the Nazis animus toward the Jews derived from (Nazi) racial ideology.” “Under the cover of the Second World War (1939-45), for the sake of their New Order ... the Nazis sought to murder every Jew everywhere” .

Notes

 http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005143 
 Omer Bartov, Antisemitism, the Holocaust, and Reinterpretations of National Socialism, in The Holocaust and History - The Knowon, the Unknown, the Disputed and the Reexamined; eds: Michael Berenbaum and Abraham J. Peck; published in association with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum; 1998 
 srael Gutman. Encyclopedia of the Holocaust
 Jack Fischel, The Holocaust, 1998, pps. vii-viii 
 Yad Vashem, About the Holocaust - Shoah. http://www.yadvashem.org.il/holocaust/faq/index.html 

Rachellehayoun (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

error: gas van

This Van is clearly a Magirus. Nothing is known about gas vans from "Magirus". It should be removed because gas vans are known from the companies Saurer, [[Diamond T], Opel and Renault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas Maierhofer (talk • contribs) 07:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

see Link: deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas_chambers_vans --Holgerjan (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Under-Reporting of Non-Jewish Victims/Possible Bias

When one reads this article, the majority of its information refers to Jewish victims of the Holocaust. In fact, the first paragraph refers to the "6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust." Later, it goes on to say that the total number, including Gentile peoples (Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, Poles, Serbs, the "feeble minded," gypsies, etc.) is closer to 11-16 million. Now, I can do the math. It appears to me that the number of Gentile victims is at least equal to, if not more than, the number of Jewish victims of the Holocaust. So, why is the emphasis of this article on Jewish victims? I always hear the first statistic and very little about the second, except that Hitler killed many other people, including...(see above). If you click on the box of links within the article, the information on Jewish victims is voluminous, whereas, the specific link of non-Jewish peoples killed is ONE SENTENCE: Scholars disagree as to whether the term "Holocaust" should refer to the millions of non-Jews Hitler also killed. This seems biased and incomplete to me. While the article does break down the various non-Jewish groups briefly, it never states an all-inclusive number of non-Jewish victims, such as the well-known "6 million Jews" quote. Holocaust, both in the dictionary and as a colloquialism, means a mass killing. It is not specific to Jewish peoples. The genocides in Rwanda and Kosovo have also been described as holocausts. Adding the controversy about whether scholars agree whether the Gentile deaths "count" is as vile as those who deny the Holocaust ever happened. The Holocaust was a terrible stain on world history. I am not disputing that, but "those who forget history are condemned to repeat it." Wikipedia: Please be fair about ALL of the people killed in the Holocaust, not just the Jewish victims, or you run the risk of perpetuating this ignorance and downplaying the vast evil that Hitler perpetrated. I realize the actual number of non-Jewish victims is difficult to pinpoint, but some of the same controversy exists with regard to Jewish victims.

These sites may provide some valuable references:

www.holocaustforgotten.com www.holocaust.com.au/mm/nonjewish.htm www.britannica.com/.../Holocaust/.../Non-Jewish-victims-of-Nazism www.ukemonde.com/holocaust/victims.html

Shalom68.53.40.3 (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The article (and sub articles) can always use more input, citations, examples. Feel free to add to the appropriate sections, or add new ones! For example, the section on medical experiments points out Mengele and his fascination with Roma victims, the T-4 article goes into depth on disabled victims, etc.Ronabop (talk)

the lede picture.

the comment under the box claims that they are Jewish victims of the nazis, the description on the rationale just says victims of the nazis. I fail to see how the bodies are all known to be Jewish? Off2riorob (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed the caption. --Atomic blunder (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a more accurate reflection now, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

JP gordon has reverted with this edit summary..Please take this to talk; the lede has been carefully worked and discussed over a long period of time.

As stated in my edit summary: "no citation provided that this [the photo] is Auschwitz or that all the victims were Jewish". --Atomic blunder (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is a correct reflection of reality as the picture has actually only recently been included in the article. Would JPGordon, please provide some citation that claims that the bodies are jewish and they they are from Auswitch. Off2riorob (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks as if he has blindly reverted all of AtomicBlunder's edits and the photo caption has got included by default or mistake? Off2riorob (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I am sure he will come here to discuss his revert. Off2riorob (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm searching Yad Vashem right now for the source for that particular image. But they're pretty precise about where the pictures are from. (Not exactly a pleasant endeavor.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you are having to do that, but thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The picture is also on the world war2 article here where it has the caption, Victims of the Holocaust. Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Searching the huge photo archive is difficult; the picture looks like a lot of Auschwitz pictures, but I've not yet found this specific one. I've asked the archivist there for assistance. In the meantime, a more generic caption would be appropriate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your work,I wish you luck with finding it, for now shall we go to the same caption as the WW2 article? Victims of the Holocaust. Off2riorob (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Or we can leave it till some reply from the archivist, I am fine with either. Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A citation tag was added which looked wrong so I have moved to the clear comment, Victims of the Holocaust. which looks better and lets see what the archives come up with. Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Under-Reporting of Non-Jewish Victims/Possible Bias

When one reads this article, the majority of its information refers to Jewish victims of the Holocaust. In fact, the first paragraph refers to the "6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust." Later, it goes on to say that the total number, including Gentile peoples (Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, Poles, Serbs, the "feeble minded," gypsies, etc.) is closer to 11-16 million. Now, I can do the math. It appears to me that the number of Gentile victims is at least equal to, if not more than, the number of Jewish victims of the Holocaust. So, why is the emphasis of this article on Jewish victims? I always hear the first statistic and very little about the second, except that Hitler killed many other people, including...(see above). If you click on the box of links within the article, the information on Jewish victims is voluminous, whereas, the specific link of non-Jewish peoples killed is ONE SENTENCE: Scholars disagree as to whether the term "Holocaust" should refer to the millions of non-Jews Hitler also killed. This seems biased and incomplete to me. While the article does break down the various non-Jewish groups briefly, it never states an all-inclusive number of non-Jewish victims, such as the well-known "6 million Jews" quote. Holocaust, both in the dictionary and as a colloquialism, means a mass killing. It is not specific to Jewish peoples. The genocides in Rwanda and Kosovo have also been described as holocausts. Adding the controversy about whether scholars agree whether the Gentile deaths "count" is as vile as those who deny the Holocaust ever happened. The Holocaust was a terrible stain on world history. I am not disputing that, but "those who forget history are condemned to repeat it." Wikipedia: Please be fair about ALL of the people killed in the Holocaust, not just the Jewish victims, or you run the risk of perpetuating this ignorance and downplaying the vast evil that Hitler perpetrated. I realize the actual number of non-Jewish victims is difficult to pinpoint, but some of the same controversy exists with regard to Jewish victims.

These sites may provide some valuable references:

www.holocaustforgotten.com www.holocaust.com.au/mm/nonjewish.htm www.britannica.com/.../Holocaust/.../Non-Jewish-victims-of-Nazism www.ukemonde.com/holocaust/victims.html

Shalom68.53.40.3 (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The article (and sub articles) can always use more input, citations, examples. Feel free to add to the appropriate sections, or add new ones! For example, the section on medical experiments points out Mengele and his fascination with Roma victims, the T-4 article goes into depth on disabled victims, etc.Ronabop (talk)

the lede picture.

the comment under the box claims that they are Jewish victims of the nazis, the description on the rationale just says victims of the nazis. I fail to see how the bodies are all known to be Jewish? Off2riorob (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed the caption. --Atomic blunder (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a more accurate reflection now, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

JP gordon has reverted with this edit summary..Please take this to talk; the lede has been carefully worked and discussed over a long period of time.

As stated in my edit summary: "no citation provided that this [the photo] is Auschwitz or that all the victims were Jewish". --Atomic blunder (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is a correct reflection of reality as the picture has actually only recently been included in the article. Would JPGordon, please provide some citation that claims that the bodies are jewish and they they are from Auswitch. Off2riorob (talk) 15:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks as if he has blindly reverted all of AtomicBlunder's edits and the photo caption has got included by default or mistake? Off2riorob (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC) I am sure he will come here to discuss his revert. Off2riorob (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm searching Yad Vashem right now for the source for that particular image. But they're pretty precise about where the pictures are from. (Not exactly a pleasant endeavor.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you are having to do that, but thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The picture is also on the world war2 article here where it has the caption, Victims of the Holocaust. Off2riorob (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Searching the huge photo archive is difficult; the picture looks like a lot of Auschwitz pictures, but I've not yet found this specific one. I've asked the archivist there for assistance. In the meantime, a more generic caption would be appropriate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your work,I wish you luck with finding it, for now shall we go to the same caption as the WW2 article? Victims of the Holocaust. Off2riorob (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Or we can leave it till some reply from the archivist, I am fine with either. Off2riorob (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A citation tag was added which looked wrong so I have moved to the clear comment, Victims of the Holocaust. which looks better and lets see what the archives come up with. Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Holocaust

The most common definition of the Holocaust is the genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II.[1] My changes to the lede[2] were reverted by Jpgordon. According to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, my changes should be restored, or something similar. --Atomic blunder (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, your changes should be discussed. Do you think this issue hasn't come up before? So now we're in the next stage of the WP:BRD cycle, as it should be. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(and, by the way, if you just want "most", the majority of sources on the page you pointed to agree with the definition we're using; some distinguish, as we do, between "holocaust" and "The Holocaust".) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I just counted the definitions of the Holocaust as used to refer to Nazi murders during WWII in the dictionary entries under General. Out of the 30 listings, 10 supported "European Jews and others" and 9 supported "European Jews". The others did not apply. --Atomic blunder (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the party! There has been, quite literally, years of effort applied to tune the lede. I don't think your changes were too far out of line, but if you crawl through the archives, you will find numerous various arguments for, and against, the differing perspectives in play. Ronabop (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how the term is thought of in other parts of the world; like Poland, Russia, Africa, or the Orient. --Atomic blunder (talk) 22:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the online translation of the lede of the Russian Wikipedia article:

"It [kholoko]́[st] (from Engl. holocaust, from others - Greek. ὁλοκαύστος - “[vsesozhzhenie]”) - systematic pursuit and the destruction by German Nazis and by collaborationists from other countries of millions of victims of the Nazism: almost third of Jewish people and numerous representatives of other minorities, which underwent discrimination, atrocities and severe murders."

--Atomic blunder (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The wikipedia talk pages I checked often had the exact same set of discussions we regularly encounter here, occurring in other languages, all over the world. Which was kind of comforting. Ronabop (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup. And the results seem entirely mixed, judging from the ones I sampled. There is no "right answer"; there's just local consensus at each Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to split the article

This article is too long:

"This page is 183 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size." [3]

I would support this article being split into two articles. One would have the title "The Holocaust" and discuss the genocide of European Jews and others by the Nazis during World War II. The other would be titled "The Holocaust (Jewish)" and focus on the genocide of European Jews by the Nazis during World War II. --Atomic blunder (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "The Holocaust (Jewish)". That is your coinage. Bus stop (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is already a similar article, Final Solution, so you can scrap my suggestion. I'm not sure how the article could be split into shorter articles. It is a very long article. --Atomic blunder (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps parts of this article could be moved to the article Final Solution to make this one shorter. --Atomic blunder (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

<edit conflict>We've actually had a bunch of split-outs over the years, with sub-pages on Polish aspects, Roma aspects, Homosexuals, Freemasons, T-4, etc. (Note the number of sub articles this page is linked to...) A "Shoah" article might be a better way to partition information on Jewish victims, but for many scholars and researchers, "The Holocaust" is specifically about the persecution of Jews (it's pretty well referenced), with other scholars including a wider definition ("and others", as you put it, which is also referenced). Hence, the lede (and the many discussions about it), and numerous sub-articles.

All that being said, since "Shoah" currently redirects here, when much of the information on this page is about non-Jewish victims (and I haven't seen a whole lot of claims that the term Shoah is used in broader senses, but I could be wrong), so there's certainly reason to discuss lifting that redirect, and moving some text into that page. Ronabop (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, speaking as a Jew, I have to say that I was surprised that "Shoah" redirected to this page. A lot of Jews don't like to use the word "holocaust" to describe the (Jewish) Shoah, because holocaust has a very specific ritual meaning in Jewish tradition, so to call this obscene act by the name of a Jewish ritual is pretty distasteful. Just my opinion, obviously, but I'd rather have a separate "Jewish Shoah" article that contained cross-references to the non-Jewish holocaust information in this article.Dougom (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any Jewish ritual called "holocaust." In fact, from what I've read, the Jewish dislike of the word stems from its connotations of Pagan rituals, not Jewish rituals. Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Tad, I'm sorry that I wasn't clear. There isn't a "holocaust ritual;" the term "holocaust" is used to describe the complete burning of the offering to HaShem/God in ritual--the so-called "burnt offering"--as the "holocaust." So you can see why it might be offensive to Jews; Germans killed and burned millions of Jews into ash, and then the term for that became "holocaust," which is a term meant to describe the "burnt offering." So it's kind of doubly-bad; it takes something profane and attaches a word associated with the sacred; and it implicitly compares Jews burnt by Nazis to animals burnt by men. Hope that makes a bit more sense.Dougom (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am Jewish as well and am aware of what occurred during the Holocaust. What I meant to say is that holocaust is a Greek word and I have never heard it used to refer to Jewish sacrificial offerings. From research I have done, I was under the impression that it was a word used by the Greeks to refer to burnt offerings made to Pagan gods, and it is this Pagan connotation that Jews find insulting. Tad Lincoln (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am with tad. I have only heard of the sacrifice at the Temple refered to as the burnt-offering, never Holocaust. There are today many Jewish intellectuals in the US who are critical of the "cult of the Holocaust" (the way caring about the Holocaust has become the primary means by which people experience or express their Jewish identity) but I know of no Jewish leaders or educators or anyone for that matter who takes offence at calling it the Holocaust. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do know of some Jewish educators who take offense, so neener neener! But seriously: I'll yield on it with this proviso: I still think calling the killing of 6 million Jews by the Jewish term Shoah would be preferable.Dougom (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Medical Experiments

This segment is missing some very important information related to whom was behind the experiments. I would like that this information be added to the paragraph. If a citation is needed please refer to Population Control, Nazis, and the U.N! by Anton Chaitkin

"The Rockefeller Foundation created the medical specialty known as Psychiatric Genetics. For the new experimental field, the Foundation reorganized medical teaching in Germany, creating and thenceforth continuously directing the ``Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Psychiatry and the ``Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics and Human Heredity. The Rockefeller's chief executive of these institutions was the fascist Swiss psychiatrist Ernst Rudin, assisted by his proteges Otmar Verschuer and Franz J. Kallmann.

In 1932, the British-led ``Eugenics movement designated the Rockefeller's Dr. Rudin as the president of the worldwide Eugenics Federation. The movement called for the killing or sterilization of people whose heredity made them a public burden.

A few months later, Hitler took over Germany and the Rockefeller-Rudin apparatus became a section of the Nazi state. The regime appointed Rudin head of the Racial Hygiene Society. Rudin and his staff, as part of the Task Force of Heredity Experts chaired by SS chief Heinrich Himmler, drew up the sterilization law. Described as an American Model law, it was adopted in July 1933 and proudly printed in the September 1933 Eugenical News (USA) with Hitler's signature. The Rockefeller group drew up other race laws, also based on existing Virginia statutes. Otmar Verschuer and his assistant Josef Mengele together wrote reports for special courts which enforced Rudin's racial purity law against cohabitation of Aryans and non-Aryans.

In 1943, Otmar Verschuer's assistant Josef Mengele was made medical commandant of Auschwitz. As wartime director of Rockefeller's Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Eugenics and Human Heredity in Berlin, Verschuer secured funds for Mengele's experiments at Auschwitz from the German Research Council. Verschuer wrote a progress report to the Council: ``My co-researcher in this research is my assistant the anthropologist and physician Mengele. He is serving as Hauptstuermfuehrer and camp doctor in the concentration camp Auschwitz.... With the permission of the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler, anthropological research is being undertaken on the various racial groups in the concentration camps and blood samples will be sent to my laboratory for investigation.

Mengele prowled the railroad lines leading into Auschwitz, looking for twins--a favorite subject of psychiatric geneticists. On arrival at Mengele's experimental station, twins filled out ``a detailed questionnaire from the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. There were daily drawings of blood for Verschuer's ``specific protein research. Needles were injected into eyes for work on eye color. There were experimental blood transfusions and infections. Organs and limbs were removed, sometimes without anesthetics. Sex changes were attempted. Females were sterilized, males were castrated. Thousands were murdered and their organs, eyeballs, heads, and limbs were sent to Verschuer and the Rockefeller group at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute. --Kettenhunde (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah, a citation will definitely be required - a number of them, especially since it's filled with WP:POV and WP:Original Research and would seem to be based on an unreliable, possibly conspiracy theory source. Skinny87 (talk) 18:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

And...yep, confirmed via google. Massive conspiracy theory website, entirely unreliable source and extremely, extremely POV. Wouldn't want this stuff a mile near the Holocaust article. If you can find some decent WP:Reliable Sources that aren't conspiacry theories, then please present them here. Otherwise, I think it's a no go, although we'll need wider input obviously. Skinny87 (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Main Article Image

Having opened this article for the first time, the main image seems unnecessarily horrific. I know that Wikipedia have a policy on not censoring, but is it really necessary to have a pile of dead Jews as the first thing you see after opening the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.65.117 (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's only an opinion, but I agree. Dougom (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the picture is a good reflection of just how awful it was, previously there was a train station pic and IMO this picture is tough to look at but the Holocaust was awful wasn't it. Feel free to nominate a new picture if there is one you feel is better. Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The Holocaust was exactly that -- a horrific pile of dead Jews. The picture is appropriate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There aren't a whole lot of people who think the Shoah wasn't awful; I don't think we have to slap readers in the face with it on their immediate entry into the article. If someone had a public-use picture of that pile of shoes in the Holocaust Museum in DC, I think that would be a better image. Or at least, maybe the image could be moved "below the fold." Again, just my opinions.Dougom (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

proposal to move article to "Shoah"

I suggest moving this page to "Shoah", then, redirecting "the Holocaust" to "Shoah", and finally, redirecting "holocaust", without "the", to the "holocaust (disambiguation)". How does that sound? --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am very doubtful that you'll be able to get a consensus for that. Holocaust is a much more commonly used term, whereas Shoah is generally used only by Jews. Most people looking for information about the Holocaust are going to search "holocaust" not "shoah", and looking at it the other way, most people who search "holocaust" are going to be looking for information about the Shoah. Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some, even maybe most, people looking for info on the Holocaust are typing "holocaust" and not "shoah". But that does not necessarily mean that we should forsake accuracy to cater to facility. Two other examples that I think spell out the situation are: when people search "president of the united states" most are probably looking for information on Barack Obama, the current holder of that office, rather than the office. Also "September 11th" directs to a day which occurs every year rather than the atrocity which occurred on a particular September 11th.

Back to this situation, the word "holocaust" has a broad definition, of which the Shoah is one particular connotation. See: Dictionary.com search for the word "holocaust"

Now, how does that sound?

--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

See, but I really disagree with your examples. Most people looking for information on Barack Obama would be more likely to search for "Barack" or "Obama", whereas the majority of people who search "president of the united states" are probably interested in the office in general or on discovering the identity of the current president, which they would find at President of the United States. Calling the article anything other than "The Holocaust" would going against the Wikipedia policy of using the most common name of the subject for the name of the article. Tad Lincoln (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that there is a growing academic field called "Holocaust Studies," I think they even have a journal. I think we should take our lead from them. Do they set Shoah (the Holocaust of the Jews) apart from the other Holocausts that are among the Nazi atrocities? If they do, and if there is divergent research on the Shoah and other Holocausts, then it would make sense to have a conent fork. But as long as this article does not get too long, and as long as scholars who write about the Shoah also write about other Holocausts, or scholars writing about the Shoah and scholars writing about other Holocausts cite one another, I would say the topics are suficiently intertwined to justify keeping it all in one article. What we need is some research into the current stte of Holocaust Studies. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Tad Lincoln, I agree on the first example (president/obama), but what do you think of the september 11th example? And also the definitions from dictionary.com?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

SIrubenstein, I'll leave that for you to research. Personally, the primary issue I'm concerned with is the heading over the Wikipedia article regarding the systematic killings of approximately 6 million Jews. I find a tangle in logic where it is right to call such an atrocity an "offering to the gods" for all the respect or lack of respect that entails, and to leave out the murder of the hundreds of thousands of gentiles from said offering, and all the respect or disrespect that entails. The term "Shoa" remains a distinct term, and relates specifically to the Jewish experience, as opposed to the general Greek-originated word. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, one of the main issues here is WP:naming conventions. With the September 11th example, there is no other possible name that could be used for the article September 11. Also, as this article mentions, the word "Holocaust" can refer to either the systematic killings by the Nazis as a whole, or to the genocide of the Jews specifically. There is a decent sized section in this article devoted to non-Jewish victims, as well as several articles dedicated to specific groups. Jews did, however, make up the majority of the victims. And since "the Holocaust" can be used to refer to the Jewish genocide only, but is never used to refer to all other victims except the Jews, it makes sense to me to leave things the way they are. Tad Lincoln (talk) 00:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Abie writes, "for all the respect or lack of respect that entails, and to leave out the murder of the hundreds of thousands of gentiles from said offering, and all the respect or disrespect that entails." I am sorry Abie, but unless you can provide a reliable source expressing a significant view that forwards this opinion, your claim is pointless. Your opinion does not go into articles, niether does mine. Only significant views from reliable sources. Do you have one? That would be valuable. But if this is just what you think, it is time to drop the issue and move on to other topics because there is a host of reliable sources using the term Holocaust in reference to the Jews. Words have more than one meaning. A sacrifice to the gods is one meaning of Holocaust. The extermination of the Jews (and others) is another meaning. Naming conventions aside, you are making an argument and we just do not put editors' arguments into articles, Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

SIrubenstein, I'm still waiting for your contribution from the "Holocaust Studies" realm. We want this page just like every page to be constantly the best, most accurate page possible. My point is for clarity, NOT soapboxing. You made a suggestion, now I expect you to follow through, or else I'll have to reevaluate what your words really mean. And I'd SO like to take your words at face value, as I hope you take mine.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 09:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil when talking to fellow editors. Slrubenstein merely made a suggestion of something that should be researched in determining the best name for this article. He did not volunteer to do such research. Also please do not try to demand things of other editors. You are much more likely to make progress by being polite.Tad Lincoln (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree about SIrubenstein and my assigning a task to thone. SI suggested something that had never occurred to me and of which I don't see the point. But if thone or another person comes up with something valid from that field of study, I would read it, I simply don't see the logic at the moment. I agree that I assumed SI accepted to carry out the research that thone suggested, and hastily. I'll watch that. But I think there remains another issue to iron out. Tad Lincoln, you helped me understand SIrubenstein, but who is there that can help SIrubenstein understand me? SIrubenstein stated my point exactly, "Words have more than one meaning. A sacrifice to the gods is one meaning of Holocaust. The extermination of the Jews (and others) is another meaning," but SI then went on to say that I'm putting my own personal "argument" into the article. Where did this lapse come from? I feel that I do have a point and until it is shown to me to be a moot one, then I wonder how SIrubenstein can come to acknowledge it?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 21:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that 1 out of every million people in the world would use the word "Shoah" before "Holocaust." I don't think you'd be able to prove otherwise. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What is Abie's point? That the word Shoah lso refers to the Holocaust? Well, I am pretty sure the Holocaust article says that. Or is his point that Shoah is a more common and recognized word for the Holocaust than Holocaust? I made a simplepoint: Abie has a responsibility to provide a reliable source to support this point. It is not my point, so I do not feel any desire to research it. It is Abie's point and if he wants us to take seriously his proposal to change the name of the article, he has to provide a reliable source. Until then, well, I think i understand Abie perfectly: he is soap-boxing. My advice (unless you have a reliable source, which we all appreciate) is, start a blog. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I posit that the word "Shoah" is the preferred term among Jews to refer to the event. I also posit that, like "African-American" rather than "Black," or "Native American" rather than "Indian," it is more respectful. Further, since there are clearly some folks who believe that a distinction should be made between this particular occurrence of attempted genocide and others (the Hutu/Tutsi horror in Rwanda, for example), this would help resolve that particular issue as well.

I don't have a bunch of magazines in front of me, but consider these examples: the memorial day in Israel for the Jewish genocide is "Yom Ha-Shoah"; the list of survivors at Yad Vashem is the "Shoah Database," not the "Holocaust Database"; at USC it's the "USC Shoah Foundation Institute," not the "USC Holocaust Foundation Institute." My purpose in listing these examples is simply to show that use of "Shoah" is not unknown.Dougom (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You can posit all you want, but a reliable source is neccessary to say that "Shoah" is the more preferred term. I agree that your examples indicate that "Shoah" is not unknown, but it would be WP:SYNTH to draw any further conclusions from that. Singularity42 (talk) 13:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If I might humbly add a word, David Stannard's work covers the use of the words H/holocaust and Shoah extensively in his essay "Uniqueness as Denial: The Politics of Genocide Scholarship" in the book Is The Holocaust Unique? (book). It is extensively researched and covers a lot of nuances of the issue. Yes, in a word, I recommend the word "Shoah" be the title of the article with linkage to H/holocaust. In answer to the question, by the way: "Is the H/holocaust unique?" Stannard's answer is that, like every historic event, it has unique attributes. And as a genocide, it was horrific. Of that, there can be no doubt. But it is neither the most massive genocide nor did it exterminate a greater percentage of the target population than any other genocide in recent memory. That distinction, according to Dr. Stannard, belongs to the genocide/holocaust of the First Nations people of the Americas, about 150 million of whom have been extinguished (through various means, like the Shoah victims) and whose continuing genocide he catalogues in his American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World, another brilliant piece of scholarship. "Vivid and relentless, combining a formidable array of primary sources with meticulous analysis - a devastating reassessment of the Conquest as nothing less than a holy war." Kirkus reviews (book review) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk • contribs) 06:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this misses the point being raised. No one is arguing the Holocaust is unique. No one is arguing that depending on how broad you clasify a specific genocide, there might be genocides worse than the Holocaust. The issue is what the common useage name is for this specific genocide. The source you provided does not state at all that "Shoah" is the more common name, and not "The Holocaust". It just says there are other any maybe worse holocausts than the Holocaust. Singularity42 (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A question was raised that brought doubt as to whether the term Shoah was used in scholarly articles; I addressed that. Singularity asked, "Do they set Shoah (the Holocaust of the Jews) apart from the other Holocausts that are among the Nazi atrocities? If they do, and if there is divergent research on the Shoah and other Holocausts, then it would make sense to have a content fork." Our unknown poster addressed that. Finally, Singularity says, "The issue is what the common useage name is for this specific genocide." I disagree; the issue rather is, "What is the preferred term for this specific genocide", as well as "Preferred by who?" I would suggest that where Jewish--rather than non-Jewish--Shoah studies groups stand on this issue is more relevant that what is "common usage." And as I say, I don't have all the various scholarly articles in front of me, so I can't provide you with those all-important references, Singularity, but I'm hoping that someone else here does, or at least has pointers. (N.B.--no need to be snarky, Singularity.)Dougom (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, I think you might be confusing me with someone else. I only got into this discussion recently, and I think you might be attributing certain comments to me (i.e. the first set of comments)...

I did say that the issue is what the common useage name is, and I stand by that. WP:NAME states:

"Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the person or thing that is the subject of the article. In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article. This means that the name chosen for an article, while in common use, should be neither vulgar nor pedantic."

What is the most common name of the Nazi genocide of the Jews in WWII? The sources in the article call it "The Holocaust". If you have a source that the common name for the genocide is "Shoah", please provide it. Otherwise, "Shoah" is just an alternate, highly used name, but not the most common name. (Oh, and as an aside, if you are implying "Shoah" is the more preferred term by Jewish groups, I would disagree. I'm Jewish, and I prefer to use "Holocaust".)Singularity42 (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And my opinion is that "common usage" is irrelevant in some case; it should be the usage preferred by Jewish groups who are experts in this field. But I don't have the research to support one term or the other; I need someone who has access to the appropriate reference material to weigh in. And believe or not, I'm Jewish, too.Dougom (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't missing the point at all. To speak of "The Holocaust" rather than "a holocaust" or "the Shoah" presumes the singularity of the event. Certain vested interests have been largely successful in propagating this perspective to the extent that since the 1950s "The Holocaust" has become common usage for the Nazi massacre of Jews. It remains, however, based on an ethnocentric point of view ("My Holocaust was worse than your holocaust!") and serves as propaganda. No thinking sensitive person likes genocides and no human being would like for there to be more holocausts, but to elevate one above all others, serves to devalue the suffering and deaths of all the rest. As Dr. Stannard argues in his essay "Uniqueness as Denial: The Politics of Genocide Scholarship" by focusing inordinate attention on one holocaust, we are effectively denying the human cost of every other holocaust. Regardless of common usage, I do not believe "The Holocaust" is a proper stand-alone title for the Jewish holocaust at the hands of the Nazis. I am not a Jew, but a Sikh. Regardless, my condolences go to my Jewish brothers and sisters in this discussion. Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Dougom: at the end of the day, Wikipedia naming policy is based on naming the article after the subject's common name, based on reliable sources. The exceptions are whether it would be vulgar or pedantic (neither of which applies here). You are arguing that that policy should give way to the preferred name given by the victims of the genocide in question. Besides the fact that a) I disagree that "Shoah" is the preferred name Jews give to the events in question (rather than a highly used, alternative name), and b) I don't think there are any reliable sources that say "Shoah" is the preferred name given to the events in question by Jewish people - it is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Unlike guidelines, policies should normally be followed. If you disagree with the policy, that should be discussed at the relevant places. (BTW - I kind of guessed you also had a Jewish background - "Shoah" isn't that common outside of Jewish groups :) )

GFSK (hope you don't mind the abbreviation): while it is true that there is a source that says it would be better if we used a name other than "The Holocaust" to describe the Nazi genocide of Jews, that does not change the fact that the common name is "The Holocaust". Personally, I don't see how that takes anything away from other genocides (or holocausts, if you will). But the policy for the article's name is what is the common term, whether or not some academic sources would think it better if the public chose a different name. Singularity42 (talk) 22:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Singularity - What I am contending is that using the singular term "The Holocaust" is vulgar because by its singular exclusivity it serves to disparage large groups of people (most especially the 1,000s of tribes of Native Americans in existence in 1492, but also Gypsies and Armenians and Cathars and others). If this were 1909, we might be using "Negro" as a heading for Afro-Americans. Even "nigger" was in common usage. Sometimes what we call "common usage" is demonstrably wrong. History is made as we live it. Anachronisms exist and where they are not suitably quaint and innocuous, they exist to be changed to fit with an advancing world-view, in this case a world-view that is less parochial, and more conscious of the many strains of world catastrophe, what we call "global history".

Since I recognize that picking up a copy of Dr. Stannard's article may not be a ready option for you, kindly allow me to share briefly from pp. 272-73 of Is The Holocaust Unique?:

"In fact, the entire process of seeking grounds for Jewish victim uniqueness is one of smoke and mirrors. Uniqueness advocates BEGIN by defining genocide (or the Holocaust or the Shoah) in terms of what they already believe to be experiences undergone only by Jews. After much laborious research it is then "discovered" - mirabile dictu - that the Jewish experience was unique. If, however, critics point out that those experiences were not in fact unique, OTHER allegedly unique experiences are invented and proclaimed. If not NUMBERS killed, then how about the PERCENTAGE of population destroyed? If not EFFICIENCY or METHOD of killing employed, how about perpetrator INTENTIONALITY? Ultimately, as we have seen, such insistent efforts extend to the point of frivolousness, as one after another supposedly significant criterion is found to have been either nonexistent or shared by others.

"Of course, those other groups could, if they chose, do precisely the same thing. It might well and logically be argued by American Indians, for instance, that for the word "genocide" to be properly applicable in describing mass destruction in which there were at least SOME survivors, a minimum of, say, 90 percent of the victim group would have to be wiped out. Is this an arbitrary criterion? Perhaps, although it could certainly be argued that short of total extermination (the only "pure" definition of genocide) 90 percent is a reasonable and round figure that identifies real genocide and prohibits the indiscriminate use of the word in comparatively "insignificant" cases of mass killing - say the roughly 65 percent mortality rate suffered by European Jews during the Holocaust.

"Were it pointed out that this figure is self-serving, since by its standard only American Indians and some other indigenous peoples would be characterized as victims of genocide, it would be easy to demonstrate that the 90 percent criterion is no more self-serving - and no more arbitrary - than those criteria put forward over the years (and time after time found wanting) by advocates of Jewish uniqueness. But in fact both cases are examples of cultural egotism driving scholarship before it. As Stephen Jay Gould has described its equivalent in the work of would-be scholars in another topic: "They began with conclusions, peered through their facts, and came back in a circle to the same conclusions," a matter of "advocacy masquerading as objectivity" (SJG, The Mismeasure of Man, New York, WW Norton, 1981, p 85). The fact that Gould was writing of nineteenth century scientists bent on proving the superiority of their race over others, just makes the citation more apt..."

The point I am making is that the term "The Holocaust" is biased, prejudicial, not based on fact, and hazardous to the health of Native Americans, Gypsies, Armenians, and the people of south Sudan. In fact, Holocaust continues today in Sudan and Latin America. It continues on the impoverished reservations of Canada and the United States of America, whose governments refuse to own up to their own roles and responsibilities to address the outcomes of these ongoing genocides. To enshrine one holocaust with the title of "Holocaust for all time" is to make an historic blunder. And that is to say nothing of Nuclear Holocaust! Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(You really didn't need to reprint the entire source, as it makes the comments so long that many readers will skim over it. As I said, I'm not disputing the source says we shouldn't call the genocide in question "The Holocaust" - although really, all it's saying is the victims' experience is not unique, nothing about the name of the genocide - I'm just saying what can be done with that source.)

Anyway, are you comparing calling the Nazi genocide of Jews "The Holocaust" as being as offensive as calling an African-American a "nigger"?? If so, then I think I'm done with this conversation now. Goodbye. Singularity42 (talk) 03:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

But just in case the conversation is not done, let me reply with the following points:

• If you are saying naming the article "The Holocaust" meets the vulgar exception to WP:NAME, then you need a consensus for that, and I don't think there is one.
• If you are saying the term "The Holocaust" is not the common-use name for the genocide in question, you need a reliable source that actually says that. A reliable source that says it's a bad idea (which, frankly, I don't think your source actually says - it's more concerned with whether the experience was unique) is not a reliable source about the common name for the subject. (Seriously, I feel as if I'm just repeating myself now.) Singularity42 (talk) 03:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Singularity. Of course we have been making the same points, and request for sources, for almost two weeks. Until someone can provide a reliable source there is no point in going on. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) Speaking from a non-Jewish perspective (as I'm not of that faith or culture), if you talk to me about "a holocaust" or "holocaust", I'm likely to ask "which one?". If you say "The Holocaust" then there can be no doubt in my mind. And I heard about the Shoah well after I heard of The Holocaust.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is probably neither welcome nor of interest, but I feel compelled to offer it anyway. While I disagree with the idea of renaming this article to Shoah for the reasons mentioned above, I do think the original poster has something of a point. The arguments which have been made in favor of keeping "The Holocaust" could just as easily be made for many other articles, though in those cases it would be clear to nearly everyone that including The in the article title would be considered by many a gross violation of NPOV. For example, it is clear to anyone living in a Western country (don't jump on me for saying that; I know I just made a broad over-generalization) when one says "The Crucifixion", that none other than the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is being referred to. However, WP redirects The Crucifixion to Crucifixion of Jesus. Similarly, "the Virgin birth" used to redirect to Virgin birth of Jesus. And "The Resurrection" actually goes to an obscure band's even more obscure album. You have to go to the dab link in the header to get to the dab page, and there we find Resurrection of Jesus. In my opinion, "The Holocaust", though a widely used common descriptor of the Jewish Holocaust in Western society, is not synonymous enough to justify the current title. Wouldn't renaming it to something more specific (including the word "Holocaust", of course) be just as appropriate here as it is in those contexts? If anyone finds my suggestion somehow personally offensive in any way, I apologize in advance, as this is not my intention. Thanks, --Aryaman (talk) 02:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting, Didn't see it this way, really, but it also makes a lot of sense. Not sure what the best course would be anymore.--Ramdrake (talk) 02:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I also think that's a very interesting point. I think, though, it goes back to the common name policy. "The Crucifixion" is probably (I'm guessing here - I've never done much research on the topic) as common as "Cucifixion of Jesus". Is "The Holocaust" as common as "Jewish Holocaust" or "Holocaust of the Jewish people"? I've never come across those terms in the reliable sources. Even the source re-printed above in support of changing the article's title only refers to it as "the Holocaust" (and "Shoah" in parentheses). I think there may be more support with comparison with "The Virgin birth", as that probably is more common than "Virgin birth of Jesus", despite there being multiple virgin births in religion and mythology. ("The Ressurrection", though, could be considered to refer to a number of possible subjects, and hence the redirect.)

So I guess the proper way to address this is as follows: does the title as it stands now violate NPOV to the extent that it should trump the current policy at WP:NAME? I would answer no - it would need to be an exceptional situation to trump Wikipedia policies (versus, say, guidelines), and this isn't an exceptional situation. At the same time, I can understanding the other side of the debate. If there is enough people who feel strongly about the other side, perhaps an RfC is in order? Singularity42 (talk) 03:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest an RfC if I knew what it was. What is it, Singularity? "Request for" something, I assume. Forgive my ignorance.Dougom (talk) 04:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:Request for comment. I don't mind preparing the request if people think it's necessary. Singularity42 (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be in order. I come across "Jewish Holocaust" fairly frequently, and - less frequently but in scholarly literature - across "Jewish Holocaust of the Second World War" and "Jewish Holocaust of the Hitler Era". I don't want to make any particular suggestions too soon, but I think there is room for improvement here. Let's see what the wider community thinks. --Aryaman (talk) 05:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have started an RfC below to get outside opinions, so the discussion should now move there. Singularity42 (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

holocaust Denial

Most notably by Iran's Presedent Ahmadinejad —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.116.107 (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Already covered at Holocaust denial. Singularity42 (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should "The Holocaust" be moved?

Should "The Holocaust" a) be kept where it is, b) be moved to "The Shoah", or c) be moved to some other title that specifically indicates it is about the holocaust of the Jewish people? Singularity42 (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

In order to avoid having to read and digest the earlier discussions, I've put together a neutral summary of the prior arguments:

Background

Most reliable sources indicate the common name for the Nazi genocide of the Jewish people is "The Holocaust". The Hebrew name for the Holocaust is "The Shoah", which is highly used, alternative English name for the Holocaust in some Jewish groups. Of course, there are other "holocausts" outside of the Holocaust/Shoah.

Argument in favour of current name

The main argument in favour of the current name is that "The Holocaust" is the common name for the article's subject (as per all reliable sources cited in the article), and Wikipedia policy in WP:NAME states that the common name should be the article's name.

Arguments in favour of moving

1. The term "holocaust" (lower-case 'h') has a broader scope/definition than the article's subject
2. Some Jewish groups find the term "holocaust" offensive due to the origin of the word (as explained in more detail in the article)
3. Related to the above, some Jewish groups prefer "Shoah", and it is more respectful
4. (Slightly different than the last) "Shaoh" is prefered by Jews generally
5. Use of "The Holocaust" creates a preference over other holocausts/genocides, and could be disrespectful to those who suffered in them
6. Related to the above, use of "The" violates WP:NPOV.

Singularity42 (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent summary, Singularity; thanks for taking this on.Dougom (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments and Discussion

Keep. For the following reasons:

• WP:NAME is policy, and it is a rare case where we go around Wikipedia policy. This is not such a case.
• The fact that "holocaust" can have other definitions is explained in the article, but "The Holocaust" is the common name of this genocide - keep in mind there is also Holocaust (disambiguation).
• Just because "Shoah" is preferred by some Jewish groups, doesn't mean that almost every non-Jewish person knows the genocide as "The Holocaust". I also don't think it is offensive enough to bring in the "vulgar" exception in WP:NAME.
• There are no reliable sources that state that "Shoah" is preferred by Jews generally, and I would in fact, disagree with such an assertion.
• I really don't see how this is disrespectful to other groups who have suffered their own genocides. In any case, Wikipedia is not for changing the public's view of what the common name is because of those type of concerns. Wikipedia is to reflect what the common name currently is.
• I'm not entirely sure I agree with the NPOV problem, but even if there is, the NPOV problem would be slight, and isn't enough to trump WP:NAME.

Singularity42 (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - For all of the above reasons, but especially because Wikipedia is not censored. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per above. "The Holocaust" is used by English speakers to refer to the WWII events, per numerous reliable sources. Other non-WWII "holocausts", when used, are normally qualified as belonging to some other event, such as "Rwandan Holocaust". "Shoah" is a Hebrew term less familiar to English speakers. English Wikipedia caters to English speaking readers, not editors or Hebrew speakers, and our readers are far more likely to search for "holocaust" or "The Holocaust" than "Shoah", and that's what the title should be. Crum375 (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep name as the Holocaust - by far the most common English name. Point 1 in favor is irrelevant, this is not about a holocaust but the Holocaust, points 2, 3, and 4 dont change the fact that this is known as the Holocaust, point 5 is irrelavant, point 6, no it does not (and remove "The" from the name, the capital letter in Holocaust makes it clear that we are discussing a specific thing. I'll note that Israel's official Holocaust memorial calls it the Holocaust. This is by far the most common English name and there is no policy-based reason to change it while there is one to keep it where it is. nableezy - 14:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep at current name When one talks about the capitalized version of "Holocaust", or if one just says "The Holocaust" without any other adjective, it is always understood it means the genocide of Jewery under the Nazi regime. Wikpedia is not in the business of making people feel good or bad, we are a tertiary source that reflects the general usage of the world around us. In English language literature, media, scholarship, and vernacular, the meaning of the phrase "The Holocaust" is clear, unambiguous, and incontrovertible. In light of the above Moving this article would be a gross violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAP, WP:NEO, and plain old common sense. -- Avi (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep for all the above reasons; per the lead para, it IS "the term generally used". Barnabypage (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep "Most reliable sources indicate the common name for the Nazi genocide of the Jewish people is "The Holocaust"". --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The OED has:

2.d the Holocaust: the mass murder of the Jews by the Nazis in the war of 1939–1945. Also used transf., of the similar fate of other groups; and attrib.

The specific application was introduced by historians during the 1950s, probably as an equivalent to Heb. ḥurban and shoah ‘catastrophe’ (used in the same sense); but it had been foreshadowed by contemporary references to the Nazi atrocities as a ‘holocaust’ (sense 2 c): see quots. 1942–49. The term is in common use among Jews, but seems to be otherwise relatively rare except among specialists.

It think it's right that the article remain as The Holocaust, and that etymology and usage are discussed within the article. I think the article does a pretty good job in that respect, but it needs to be clearer on the difference between holocaust and the Holocaust. In discussing holocaust, it has "Since the 1960s, the term has come to be used by scholars and popular writers to refer exclusively to the genocide of Jews." While that's true of the Holocaust, it's not true of holocaust.

I'm not swayed by the NPOV discussion above which uses the The Crucifixion example. NPOV is about the relationship between an article and its reliable sources. It's not about internal consistency between WP articles. Each article has to assessed individually, and calling this article The Holocaust accurately reflects usage in the reliable sources. MoreThings (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Nableezy. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• comment Premature (and even too late for now). If WP were around in the 60s, the use of the English word might would probably have been disputed and dismissed (due to the many reasons in this rfc and the main text and the way WP works) Currently, The Holocaust is still the most commonly used name but Shoah is rapidly growing in use and will inevitable overtake the English/Greek word, especially after the current generations expire and the young of today and following generations forget about WWII and the systematic genocide of the Jews (and the massive horrendous destruction of human life during that time, for that matter). --Shuki (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. "The Holocaust" is how it is known internationally. We go by the most recognised name. "Shoah" is used by relatively few English-speaking people. Fences&Windows 00:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep -- This is the English WP and so should use an English title, not a Hebrew one (which I presume is what "Shoah" is). If the Rwandan genocide comes popularly to be called a holocaust, this article could become "The Jewish Holocaust", but I do not think that is necessary. I do not think it is necessary for the article to be so NPOV as to reflect in the title the Nazi viewpoint on the subject! Peterkingiron (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW - although I am also of the "keep" point of view, the NPOV argument I mentioned in my summary of the ongoing discussion was a different context than how you may have interpreted it. My understanding was the NPOV argument was to reflect that putting "The" in front of "Holocaust" creates a presumption that it takes precedence over other genocides/holocausts. As I mentioned in my comments, I don't think it's a very strong argument, and it definitely doesn't change that "The Holocaust" is the common name - but I wanted to just clarify that point in case there was some confusion about what I put in the summary. Singularity42 (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep This is how it is known. I've never heard of "shoah" before, and we should not depart from the convention of using the most commonly known name. Singularity42 is quite correct in that using "the" implies a certain precedence of The Holocaust over others, but that's a reflection of the popular understanding, not an insertion of particular opinion. Some names just become embedded in the lexicon. Ray^Talk 16:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I've been in this same discussion over the title before. We discussed moving it to 'Holocaust', 'Shoah', 'The Shoah' or 'Jewish Holocaust' but nothing has changed and those arguments are still valid to keep the title. Those names already redirect to 'The Holocaust' so it's irrelevant; the name space of that set is closed. Guess this vote will be made once or several times a year.
  • Comment 'holocausts' is not taken and could be developed to discuss other destruction of a people as significant as the WWII holocaust. The total number wouldn't compare but a major percentage destruction of an ethnic group could be described i.e.the Rawanda genocide. I have no source for this opinion and it would be an expansion of the word beyond the nuclear or burnt offering meanings. Alatari (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - 'cause that's what we call it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 19:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: The irony of all of this is that for every bit of strength possibly gained by Jewish persons from a rename, it would sour the memories of the dead in every other minority group that was targeted. That's quite a NPOV conflict in and of itself. The "The"? We have so many events in history with that marker even if they're no longer a unique thing. For this though? How we say it in English is this, and is one of the single most known terms in the whole of modern human history. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep 'The Holocaust' is by far the most common name for this tragic event. Shoah is also a perfectly good name, but it simply isn't as well known among English speakers generally. When was the last time you saw a news report about a 'Shoah denier'? Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• keep per everybody else. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep well explained above.Joel Mc (talk) 22:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Body Politic

I have a question regarding reference 238, Steakley, James. "Homosexuals and the Third Reich", The Body Politic, Issue 11, January/February 1974. I have searched Tulane University's repository of journals as well as searching on the internet and I have found no such journal, "The Body Politic." Can anyone verify that this journal does exist? Otherwise it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rufander (talk • contribs) 01:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you did an internet search without coming across any mention of the The Body Politic. It has even had its own coverage. Besides the link in the actual reference, I came across [4] and [5] (just as examples - the list was, in fact, huge). Singularity42 (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yiddish Speakers

In describing the Holocaust, mention should be made of the ethnic/linguistic characteristics of the people being eliminated from Europe (ie. Jews). In other words, for example, a major European language (Yiddish), was effectively almost eliminated from Europe (and perhaps the world) as a result of the Holocaust. So, I think the article should mention somewhere that around 85% of the Jews killed in the Holocaust were speakers, readers, and writers of Yiddish. In other words, the situation of the disappearance of Yiddish (Yiddish press, etc) should specifically be mentioned as one of the visible effects of the Holocaust.Jimhoward72 (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Find a high quality scholarly source which says that this is one of the visible effects of the Holocaust, and it may be accepted. But you can't make up or synthesize your own material, per WP:NOR and WP:SYN. Crum375 (talk) 23:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Also note that before the Holocaust Yiddish was an official language in Belorussian SSR and even its coat of arms had inscription in Yiddish. After the war it was abolished.--MathFacts (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

7 million

There were 7 million Jews who died in the holocaust. You who say there were only 6 million are Anti-Semites! 7 million died. You who say there were only 6 million are holocaust deniers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.164.210 (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How about instead of running onto this talk page and offending every single contributer who has worked very hard on this article, you instead provide a reliable source that supports a death toll of 7 million. So far almost every reliable source cites the number at slightly under 6 million.

Also, please see the top of this page which clearly states: "Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette." Thank you. Singularity42 (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There are many conservative Jews who say that the death toll was 7 or 8 million jews. I think all the sources are in Hebrew. Could you please assist me. I know that 6 million is a gross underestimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.164.210 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As someone who spent a significant chunk of my undergraduate studies studying the holocaust, I find "6 million is a gross underestimate" quite surprising. But nevertheless, if you have links to sources in Hebrew, post them here or on my talk page. My Hebrew isn't that bad, and there are enough people who contribute to these Wikipedia pages who speak fluent Hebrew who could also follow such links. We can then determine the reliability of those sources. In the meantime, I would suggest taking a look at the information provided by Yad Vashem, which can be found here. Singularity42 (talk) 18:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that the Holocaust happened, but there is no reliable figures that can back up 6 million figure, except Raul Hilberg's theory that 5-6 million died. He provided demographic data/changes, but he did not take into account that millions of Jews moved from Europe into America as a part of the persecution conducted by the Nazi fascists. Nobody can deny that the Holocaust happened. It happend! But, there is simply no reliable figure that 6 million died. Now you claim that more than 6 million died? This smells like another propaganda aimed at inflating the numbers so Israel can get more sympathy and put the horrendous war crimes against Palestinians under the rag. Shame on you.Bosniak (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, have you read WP:AGF? Seriously, a new editor comes in here and disagrees with certain facts in the article. I calm him down and ask the new editor to provide some sources. And from that you jump to accusing the new editor of trying to cover up war crimes against the Palestinians? Please, take a step back and calm down. Like the new editor, please see the top of this talk page which reads "Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette." Thank you. Singularity42 (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, there is a lot of reliable research which says the figure is between 5 million and 6 million. Read the sources in this article, or take a look at the external link I added earlier in this thread. Singularity42 (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, while the discussion continues apace, the IP in question hasn't made a contribution to Wiki before or since his edit here. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Troll.--Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Successful, so it seems. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

castration wasn't just in Germany

the castration of mentally ill and gay people wasn't just happening in Germany but also in France/Italy and even England!Markthemac (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

evian conference and other holocaust issues

This article does not mention the evian conference

In 1938 a conference was held in the Swiss town Of Evian, termed 'the Evian conference'. At this meeting several representatives of nation states met to discuss the emigration question from Germany, including SS officers. In an agreement of non-intervention with regard to refugee questions, the 'organised world' ratified the autocracy of nazi Germany and Its policies of ethnic cleansing. (Breesheeth et.al., 1994, Schleunes,1990)

i wrote some analysis of the holocaust whilst studying a degree in social work : which is published online

does anyone have any thoughts or criticisms on the essay here http://www.socialworksearch.com/research/researchms3.shtml Darwinerasmus (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Try: Évian Conference. --Aryaman (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hoefle telegram

I hope I don't ignite anything by this, but there seems to be an inconsistency here. The caption given to the Hoefle telegram in this article states that it reports that 1.2m Jews had been killed in the Reinhard camps by the end of 1942. But the article about the telegram itself describes it as being about arrivals in the camp, and indeed the German word 'Zugang' means 'intake'. While undoubtedly the arrivals in these camps would have met the same fate as any other inmates, and thus 'arrival', barring miracles, equated with 'death', the telegram itself is clearly discussing their 'delivery' (yuk) -- the caption should be made more clear. Or am I missing something? -RagnarokCommando (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

How can 5-6 million figure be trusted?

I am asking this respectfully, because I am doing a research essay. As far as I could learn, the figure comes from Jewish sources, for example, Raul Hilberg and it is based on demographic and other "estimates" but not hard facts. Basically, what Yavshem (museum) people told me is that there is no specific "hard" number as to how many Jews died in the Holocaust. Basically, it's all about estimates. But, could these estimates be wrong? Does every massacre and killing of Jews in World War II qualify as genocide? The Courts have ruled that only 1 massacre in Bosnia qualified as genocide, for example. So, learning from their judgment, it is not plausible to accept that each and every Jewish person that died in the Holocaust qualifies as a victim of genocide. Anyways, what is your position on this. I am not interested in Holocaust denial arguments and responses; all I need is short academic (factual) response. Thanks. Bosniak (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really the right place. Talk pages are for discussing improving the article. They are not general forums for the article's topic. A good place to start, though, would be the the FAQ at Yad Vashem. Also, in regards to the second point, the Holocaust is not made up of individual events or massacres. It describes a systemetic effort by the Nazis to eliminate the Jewish people. Singularity42 (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the image of emaciated corpses in the lead too graphic?

Considering that many people feel sick just by the talk of dead people, especially family members of holocaust victims, I think the image of the starved dead Jews might be a little too much for a Wikipedia article. Anyone interested in images of holocaust victims can always just search for them. A picture of a concentration camp would be more suitable. Powerchicken (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Why sanitize the reality of it? Bus stop (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This topic has been discussed before, with WP:CONSENSUS to keep the picture. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

no, too many people don't know the reality off it. i have relatives who were killed, and believe it should be shown what and how things have happened (people should have trouble seeing these crimes, otherwise humanity doesn't learn) Markthemac (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

:::This doesn't seem to be an image of Jews, as they are not circumcised.Perhaps, unless we want to expand the Holocaust to include non Jews, we should just stick to pictures of Jews for this article?Die4Dixie (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC) per request. I have also read the rest of the article and not just the introduction.

Excuse me, but what is the point of your comment, unless you are trolling? (1) which people are not circumcized? (2) this article does as you must know include the suffering of non-Jews. Please explain. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but your comments were not civil, were the opposite of WP:AGF, and were definately uncalled for and not appreciated. If you examine the genitalia carefully, it will be self evident the corpse to which I refer. The introduction makes reference to the exclusivity in certain circles to the term. If you aren´t interested in my input, it is a big project and plenty of communist propoganda for me to rectify elsewhere. I really don´t have much more time for attitude and maudlin sensibilities.--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, your saying that victims of the Holocaust are not Jewish, and making a tendentious comment about circumcision, are not civil, and are the opposite of good faith. I am sorry you cannot appreciate it. Obviously you are not going to answer my question, about which individuals specifically are not circumcised, because you cannot. Proof enough of your bad faith. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me. The dark corpse in the bottom half of the picture. Follow the white hand that is at approximately 6 o´clock along the darker cadaver that points towrds two o´clock. Follow it until you reach the external gentile genitalia. Use the larger picture that you can reach by clicking on the image See above.--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a well known Holocaust photograph. Take your Holocaust denial somewhere else. Stellarkid (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

We should take the opinion of a guy who stares at pictures of dead peoples' penises on the internet over the word of the photographs and archivists who've labeled the image? Are you really claiming to have such an incredible level of expertise at determining the state of dead people's penises on the internet that you can make that determination? Do you have any idea how what you're saying sounds? "I've been staring at dead flaccid cock for hours, and I'm pretty sure that's an anteater, a turtleneck, a y'know, ... christian... so, I'm sure this whole thing's a farce and there's no holocaust, so we shouldn't have this picture, which is obviously faked, up on this page.' That's how your comments above read. Seriously. ThuranX (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I can't stand this picture. 3rd graders are probably coming here to research their school reports. At the very least, the uppermost image on the page should be PG-13, not the most brutal Holocaust photo we can find. I understand the argument that the Holocaust really happened and Wikipedia shouldn't be censored, but I'm also concerned that people with a gag reflex might be so turned off by the picture that they won't be as likely to look at the rest of the page. Some of my ancestors died in the Holocaust, and in my opinion, the people who can stand the thought of the Holocaust the least should be the ones thinking about how to prevent another Holocaust the most. In this, I'm concerned that such an in-your-face picture is actually counterproductive. Perhaps the picture could be put into a collapsible box, so that people who don't want to see it don't have to? And regarding whether the people in the picture were Jews or Gentiles, the proportion of Jews to Gentiles who died in the Holocaust was around 50/50. Lack of circumcision is not hard evidence that someone is Gentile--not all Jews are observant and even Orthodox Judaism allows a few exceptions to the rule--and conversely, circumcision is not hard evidence that someone is Jewish. Plenty of non-Jews get their sons circumcised. So I think the Jew vs. Gentile question is a moot point and unless the people are individually identified or the photograph is known to come from a section of the concentration camp that was murdering a particular group, can never be resolved. --AFriedman (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The Holocaust was brutal. Do you really expect us to 'sanitize' it? And your argument that teaching people about it will be counterproductive, and create more people who want to commit genocide, is absurd. If you don't want your kids to learn about death, dying, and the evil men do, then I suggest you monitor your own family in your house, and not impose your whitewashing of history on the rest of us. ThuranX (talk) 06:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, do you think this is WP:CIVIL? --AFriedman (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead image: arbitrary break 1

I think I have been one of the strongest defenders of NOTCENSORED in a variety of contexts, political as well as sexual. I also tend to be rather inclusionist when it comes to the relevance of illustrations, including the appropriateness of unpleasant pictures in context--and this article is certainly an appropriate context for this picture. But the maintenance of such standards also requires their appropriate usage within the article, and one of the requirements for the exercise of an unrestricted liberty is some degree of discretion in using it. For example, we normally illustrate sexual activities by drawings, not photographs. As another example, we usually do keep particularly shocking photographs out of the lede section. True, it could be said that anyone coming to an article like this ought to know what to expect--but not everyone actually will--and people will click the link without necessarily realising. The solution is to move the image out of the first position and use one of the many somewhat less sidturbing ones there; this image would then go somewhere later down. DGG ( talk ) 15:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DGG, why not something like this picture for the lead, which doesn't pull any punches, but not so up close? The scale of the holocaust should be emphasized, not individual corpses. Pirate^Argh!!1! 16:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering the function of the top of an article such as this, I think a pertinent question is whether or not such an image would be seen as appropriate for the cover of a book which plans on being very widely circulated. If you look at some of the current best selling books on the holocaust, you'll find that they manage to present powerful imagery on their covers without crossing over into 'shock' territory. One would think Wikipedia should be able to do the same. --Aryaman (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with AFriedman and others to the extent that perhaps it should not be first. There is another well-known photo of starving Jews in their bunks that would not jump out so badly. I would put the dead body pile a bit further down. They are shocking, they shock, they tell the truth, and we don't need to soften it. What was done was horrible and God forbid such a thing ever happens again, to any group of innocent people. I will go try to find the picture now. Stellarkid (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is this famous photo on About history. They say "courtesy of USHMM Photo Archives." I know nothing about how to deal with copyright issues and such but I think this photo would be a better lead-in to start with, and move the bodies down a bit . Stellarkid (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I like the alternate photo that Pirate proposed, and his point that it emphasizes the scale of the Holocaust's destruction. Maybe the dead body pile could be put a bit farther down, possibly in a collapsible box, with a warning that it contains nudity. --AFriedman (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I take no position regarding the first suggestion (alternate photo), but I definitely disagree with the second suggestion (collapsible box with warning). Not only is that contrary to WP:NOTCENSORED, since when have we put up warnings in Wikipedia that a photo contains nudity? This article is about a genocide that involved industrialized mass killings. It will be graphic. Warnings are inappropriate for Wikipedia. 02:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I would add that all articles link to Wikipedia's disclaimers, which includes Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. As per WP:NODISCLAIMERS, that should be enough. Singularity42 (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've thought about it some more and I now also agree that the photo proposed by Drunken Pirate should be moved to the lead. It still fairly depicts the horrific nature of the genocide and the scale of the death toll, and is graphic without being needlessly shocking. The original photo should stay, but moved further down the article - without a warning, etc. With all due respect to the photo suggested by Stellarkid, it just doesn't get across the full nature of the Holocaust. I agree that thee photo is quite famous and could be added to the article, but not as the lead. So to summarize: 1) this photo in the lead, 2) the original lead photo moved down with no disclaimers or warnings, and 3) if a free version of this photo exists, possibly add it later in the article. Singularity42 (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a pretty amazing picture. I agree with you that the bunk picture isn't sufficient. I was just thinking about those young kids seeing the naked body pile first and thought a slower lead-in might be better. But I like your version better if others do. Stellarkid (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Singularity42, I think this is coming down as the consensus. --AFriedman (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with singularity too, but, this picture I proposed was the best choice out of the pictures already on the page, someone is still more than welcome to search for a better lead pic.. Pirate^Argh!!1! 03:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree with your picture which is the picture that Singularity put up . I came to the party late, you must excuse me. Stellarkid (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The danger is in reducing the Holocaust to an abstraction. It is for this reason that the photo presently in the uppermost position of the article is the preferable one. The photos being suggested by some editors contain within them the shortcoming of distancing the viewer from the holocaust. There is nothing vulgar about the photograph presently in the uppermost position of the article, apart from the inherent vulgarity of the holocaust itself. The picture presently in the uppermost position of the article is photographed from a distance that is simply appropriate to the subject matter. It is not photographed from an especially close vantage point. Several bodies are contained within the total image, and some space remains for background. It is a photograph of real individuals. The real individuals are dead. That they are naked is secondary to their being dead. The visual representation of the situation should be appropriate, and not a depiction that takes the reader away from the death which was the aim of this particular event in human history. This is an inappropriate depiction relative to the picture that is in the article now (in the uppermost position) because it distances the viewer (the reader) from the most relevant facts of this event. This photograph would also be inappropriate for the uppermost position in the article. The implication of that photograph is that the event being written about was an internment camp with inhumane conditions. But that is not what the holocaust was. I don't think the holocaust was merely an internment camp with unbearable conditions. Bus stop (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

For me the nudity is a non-issue, unimportant. But isn't there the possibility that body pile is just too shocking and people, especially young people, will turn away immediately without reading on? Stellarkid (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) (BTW - I don't think anyone anymore is saying the About.com picture should be used in the lead. At this point it is a question of moving the current one further down and using the concentration camp photo from the commons as the lead picture...)

Is this seriously going to come down to an argument over vantage points? How does the proposed new picture "distance" the reader from the most relevant facts of this event? It shows huge area full of hundreds of dead bodies. Let's break it down a bit:

• As I said before, the Holocaust was graphic and horrific. We're all agreed there.
• Any lead picture on the Holocaust should represent that it was graphic and horrific. We're all agreed there.
• Both photos depict a scene from the Holocaust that is graphic and horrific. That should be pretty obvious (despite arguments that the new photo has a different vantage point.

A number of editors have expressed concern that the current photo is needlessly shocking when compared to the proposed new photo (and no, not just because of the nudity - the nudity isn't really the issue, it is just a very graphic scene). The full message still comes across in the proposed new photo. And the proposal is only to move the current lead photo down the article a bit, with the proposed new photo taking it's place in the lead. In this way, the horrific nature of the Holocaust is still demonstrated while also allowing us to build up the reader to the more shocking photo, rather than throwing it in their face right away. Singularity42 (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have arrived here out of the blue. Even though I have two young children who use Wikipedia, I do not object to the very shocking image at the top. However, I think the picture pointed out by Pirate better illustrates the whole concept and so Singularity's suggestion is a good one. Thincat (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to find a single image which represents all aspects of the Holocaust. But one aspect which has not been considered here is that, though millions died, there were survivors, some of whom are still alive today. A picture of the dead can give the impression that the Holocaust is "over", when for some, it is still a living memory of personal experience. I doubt that will be enough to get people off the "dead body" kick, but it is something to consider. --Aryaman (talk) 13:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I don't think the dead body photos imply that everyone was killed or that the Holocaust is not a living memory of personal experience. Many of the dead people in these photos were someone else's parents, children, spouses, brothers and sisters, dear friends, etc. etc. And regardless of whether some people survived, the photo Pirate suggested does hint at the massive, institutionalized destruction and loss of life. I think that putting the picture of the bunk farther down, license permitting, would make the survivor point you suggested. Heck, one of the people in that photo is even a notable survivor. --AFriedman (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Who?Stellarkid (talk) 16:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think what is meant is that even one of them would constitute a notable life. Not in the Wikipedia sense of notable. But rather in the sense of a valuable life. I hope AFriedman will correct me if I'm wrong. Bus stop (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Elie Wiesel is one of the men in the bunk picture. Barnabypage (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Bus stop, it looks like both of us learned something today!  :) Stellarkid (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, in the bunk picture. My mistake. I thought what was being referred to was the picture that is presently in the article. Yes, I now see, reference is made to the "picture of the bunk." Bus stop (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, this is correct. I meant that Elie Wiesel is in the picture of the bunk. I believe that we do have the license to use this picture, given that it's already used in his biography on WP. --AFriedman (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a good image. But it would be a poor choice to be the topmost image in this article. The powerful image that is there now is far more appropriate, because it begins to convey the depravity that is the holocaust. Bus stop (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead image: arbitrary break 2

(unindent) We weren't talking about the image with Wiesel being in the lede, just about that image being added lower down in the article. There appears to be a consensus that the image with Wiesel in it does not capture that the Holocaust was a mass killing. I believe you are the only one here who objects to making the image Pirate proposed (panoramic view of dead bodies on the ground in front of ruined buildings) into the lede? --AFriedman (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that this image does a better job at presenting multiple aspects of the Holocaust. Though there's not much to "like" about any of these pictures, I think this one presents the viewer with some necessary context and scale without misusing the dead for their "shock" value. The only thing that might need to be noted in reference to this image (see Bozrat, 1970) is that it shows inmates of Nordhausen who likely died as a result of the Allied bombing raid on the camp (hence the badly burned and partially destroyed surrounding buildings). --Aryaman (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Now you have raised another issue, and that would be that if these people were likely killed as a result of an Allied bombing raid, as you say, then it would barely be representative of the Holocaust at all.  ? Stellarkid (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

True, I looked through a half-dozen foreign language Wikipedias and this was the most appropriate. Although I'm sure there are people better suited to the task than me. It has the caption "Nazi physician Fritz Klein stands inside a mass grave in the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp after it's liberation in April 1945". Since non of the pictures are really high quality, and too up close is distasteful, someone could propose multiple images, like how they do it at the beginning on the WWII article.Pirate^Argh!!1! 01:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with changing the top picture- an image that graphic shouldn't be at the top of the page. Any of the other pictures linked here would suffice. I also have no problem with the original picture being used elsewhere- preferably with a warning. Vivouk (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)vivouk

My only issue with the picture is that there is no information - where was it taken, when, by whom? All the other pictures have at least a location, but this one just says "Victims of the Holocaust". We really ought to say where it was taken. It's apparently from Yad Vashem. Lfh (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Now I see that it was captioned as Auschwitz until September 14, and this edit. To repeat my question, does anybody know for certain where it was taken? If not, then "Unknown location" may be better than simply not mentioning it at all. Lfh (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have tapered off without any action having been taken, but it seems like there is a rough consensus (though obviously not unanimous agreement) that the image should be moved elsewhere in the article (I've seen some requests for a content warning, but I don't think that's a good idea; it's either in or it's not). It seems like this image, has the most support. Is there another one that anyone thinks is more appropriate? -- Vary | (Talk) 04:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the Lager Nordhausen graphic is, as Stellarkid pointed out, that the dead people in the picture were killed by Allied bombing rather than the Nazi extermination program. The caption for the Lager Nordhausen picture says that the dead people were most likely killed by starvation or shot by the Gestapo, which were common ways to have died in the Holocaust. So, I'm not sure Aryaman and Stellarkid were correct to bring up the issue of how they died. Even so, I'm going through pages about the extermination camps and I've found the following additional possibilities:

• - I like this one because it shows the survivors as well as the casualties
• 
• - do we want Allied soldiers in these pictures? Are these dead also killed by the Allied bombing-I'm not sure?

I still haven't looked at most of the articles about camps that weren't listed as extermination camps, and most of the articles in other languages' Wikipedias--I would expect the concentration camp articles in German, Polish and Hebrew to be especially comprehensive. --AFriedman (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There are aesthetic considerations. Though the subject matter is gruesome, the images nevertheless have formal visual qualities. The image presently at the beginning of the article is a compelling composition. This can be seen on an abstract level, and on the level of the recognizability of the human form — torsos, limbs, hands, feet, rib cages, pelvic bones. These are also abstract compositional elements. None of the other suggested replacement images exploits the possibilities inherent in the admittedly gruesome subject matter of human corpses as this one photograph does. I also think that gratuitous evidence of violence is fairly low-keyed in this one. There is not found a focus on wounds or blood for instance. There is an aesthetic quality that exploits the human body, however gruesome the conditions required to make this photograph possible may have been. Bus stop (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Bones of anti-Nazi German women can be seen in the crematoria in the German concentration camp at Weimar, Germany. Photo taken by the 3rd U.S. Army, 14th April 1945

How about provenance? My opinion is that more important than aesthetics is that we can confidently tell the reader wherre the pricture is from, when it was taken, and exactly what it depicts. I read somewhere that only 1/5 of the prisoners of the camps in Germany proper were Jewish, (although according to the article on Dachau Jews there comprised as many as 1/3). The picture used now might actually be of Russian or Polish victims, or even German political prisoners killed in a typhus epidemic. I realize that most available pictures come from the camps in Germany that the Americans liberated and not from the death camps in the east that the soviet's liberated, but surely there must be some pictures that can be used with authenticated provenance from a death camp such as the one in Oświęcim? Otherwise we might as well use this picture from Buchenwald with its original caption: --Stor stark7 ^Speak 01:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick note to AFriedman : What I said was "Now you have raised another issue, and that would be that if these people were likely killed as a result of an Allied bombing raid, as you say, then it would barely be representative of the Holocaust at all." If it were not so, then it would be appropriate. The Allies did not bomb the concentration camps, an omission that not all Jews and friends of Jews thought was the best policy. Thus...

There are plenty of photos to choose from and I personally don't like any of them. The more I think of it the more I think that the lead photo should not be the most graphic one. I am remembering from my own childhood and even young adulthood. My parents made me look at the pictures as a child, so that I would know the truth of what man can do to man. They still give me the horrors. The idea of this article is not to shock, but to teach - to get to a place of understanding, so that we do develop a horror as we work to understand what in ourselves as human beings could lead to such a thing. This is important knowledge which we have clearly not learned yet, or their would have been no genocides since. We should use a lead photo for a serious article, not the National Enquirer Holocaust article. Ease our way into the house of horrors. Stellarkid (talk) 04:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's safe to trust the information on the Nordhausen image provided by the National Archives. Is there any further objection to that photo? Is there any particular support for any of the other alternatives that have been raised? -- Vary | (Talk) 05:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I object to removing the photo that is in place. I think it is a good image. It is aesthetically emblematic of the subject of the article. It brings the Holocaust down to a human level. There is no gratuitous gore in it. It is simply an appropriate image for the subject matter, in that it depicts the human dimension. The naked bodies, facing up, backs arched is exemplary of the suffering and death that the Holocaust was about. Its power is in its pathos, not in any graphic details. Bus stop (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you object, but many good arguments have been made for placing a less intense image in the lede and the majority opinion in the thread seems to be that the image is too graphic for its current position, so I think consensus is in favor of a change. The 'graphic details' may not be the images strongest point, but they're still there, aren't they? -- Vary | (Talk) 15:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Vary that the information from the Nordhausen image should be reliable and there is no further objection from me. Again not adverse to the body pile, just move it on down a bit, please. Stellarkid (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"Graphic" is not the issue. Any illustration of the Holocaust is going to be graphic due to the underlying violence. The question is really one of beauty. Needless to say I hesitate to use the word. But given the choice between an "ugly" image and a "poetic" image, I choose the poetic image. Again — don't fault me for using a word like poetic. I am far from a Nazi sympathizer. But incongruity is a fact in many things. There can be humor amidst tragedy. It happens. I am not saying I see humor anywhere. But I think it can be said that beauty and poetry can be found in images — even of the Holocaust. And furthermore beauty is a relative thing. Why pick an ugly picture to replace a beautiful picture? Again — I am not saying that a pile of murdered people is "beautiful." But the skin stretched over the bones has a terrible beauty. Those are human beings. Note the rib cages. Note the pelvic bones. Is the human body too ugly to be seen? The fact of the matter is that the bodies are as "backwards" as they could be. The most prominent figures have their feet in the background and their heads in the foreground. They are on their backs; not on their more "protective" stomachs. And their backs are deeply arched upwards. This is a metaphorical interpretation of the holocaust itself. Yes, it is jarring. But isn't the Holocaust "jarring?" This has nothing to do with impact. This has to do with beauty and poetry. Due to the many layers high that the bodies are stacked there is an incredible beauty — you could call it choreography — that results from the complex layers of limbs, torsos, heads. Yes, it is sad — but what is the article about? It should be illustrated appropriately — with beauty. No photograph that anybody is considering has near the character and complexity of this illustration. At Wikipedia we are expected to be WP:BOLD, not timid. The replacement photos you are considering contain ordinary graphics. This photograph is no more graphic. It is just powerful by dint of aesthetics. Bus stop (talk) 17:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a mainstream, wide-circulation book about the Holocaust with that image on its cover, then I'll change my mind. Otherwise, with all due respect to your interest in the image, it should be moved down and replaced with something more suitable. --Aryaman (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

While remaining fairly agnostic on the merits or otherwise of the photo, I think it's worth pointing out that the parallel with a book's cover doesn't quite stand up. The photo, if used on the cover of a book, would likely be seen by "passers-by" in bookshops and libraries. By contrast, the Wikipedia article will only be seen by people actively seeking information on the Holocaust (and the vast majority of them will already know that it involved large-scale killing). Barnabypage (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead image: arbitrary break 3

Wikipedia is of course not a book and additionally not censored. As far as suitability is concerned it is suitable to the event that the Holocaust was — the torturing and killing of six million innocent Jews, not to mention additional millions of innocent non-Jewish people tortured and killed. Your issue is apparently with the forcefulness of this image:

Image linked to here

I think many Wikipedians would agree that our article should not be whitewashed by removing the most appropriate image thus far brought to our attention from the beginning of the article. Bus stop (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me emphasize that. The Holocaust was about the killing of innocent men women and children — not war combatants. Bus stop (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not a book. Nonetheless, the lead image of an article serves an entirely analogical purpose. While editors of mainstream presses might very well include this image in a book on the Holocaust, very few, if any, would put it on the cover. This has nothing to do with "whitewashing" or "censoring" anything. No one is denying that the image is topically relevant and that it should remain in the article, so pursuing that line of defence amounts to fighting a straw man. As I said in my last edit summary, this is not about image quality or relevance, it is about suitability. There are better ways to graphically introduce the Holocaust than by using the image you are advocating, and hundreds of respectable publications on the Holocaust amply demonstrate that fact.

PS: If you think the "innocent women and children" are worth stressing, then why not advocate an alternate image which shows women and children inmates of a KZ? --Aryaman (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"…hundreds of respectable publications on the Holocaust amply demonstrate that fact"? Actually you've cited none.

No, I didn't say anything about "innocent women and children" being "worth stressing." I spoke about "innocent men women and children" and I did so in reference to the Holocaust. I didn't mention this in reference to an image.

There may be an "analogy" between a "book" and a "Wikipedia article" but they are different. Wikipedia is Wikipedia and a book is a book. How do you know a book doesn't exist with the above image on its cover?

Should I look at the thousands of books to find out if Wikipedia has precedent in a traditionally published book on the Holocaust bearing that particular image on its cover or might I just think for myself, exercising my own judgement? Wikipedia is not censored and we Wikipedians are exhorted to think boldly.

You have conceded that the image is "topically relevant" (your words) but you are objecting to it on the grounds of "suitability" (your word). Can you please tell me what criteria you bring to bear in distinguishing between an image that is suitable and an image that is not suitable? Bus stop (talk) 01:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The question was whether the initial picture was too graphic. I think in general we agree that the lead picture should not be overly "bold" or as some might term it, overly "graphic." An educational article on the Holocaust, which is what this is purporting to be, does not need to start with bold, graphic horror pictures, no matter how pleasing one might find them aesthetically. I can't believe I am actually saying this!? Stellarkid (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously we are not talking about "pleasing…aesthetically" in the usual sense. But what sort of photos are being considered as replacements? The replacements under consideration are not only images of human carnage but additionally are ordinary images. My contention is that the present image is extraordinary. Compare the forms in that image to the sculptures of Henry Moore. I think the sculptures of Henry Moore, some of them, are reminiscent of skin stretched over bone. I am not trying to objectivize the victims of the Holocaust. Clearly the victims are not sculptures, or works of art. But I think the emaciated bodies contain elements not unlike those found in certain abstract sculptures. Does this not contain similar qualities to some of the interior spaces in the pile of corpses? The image presently at the top of the article is unusual due to its complexity. Unfortunately it is composed entirely of human bodies. They were mistreated after death just as the Nazis mistreated them prior to death. That is why they are found heaped high. I don't think terms like "graphic" or "bold" are serving our purposes in talking about most of these images. A dead body is pretty "graphic."

I would hazard a guess that it is the terrible "beauty" of the heap of bodies that presently graces the top of our article that some people object to, in comparison to other considered images. The power of it is that it rivets our attention. We find it hard to dismiss. There is a grace even in death that makes one linger over such an image. One can't help but connect the corpses to their former living selves. This is important because the Holocaust should never be reduced to mere abstract numbers. A historical recounting of the Holocaust should not distance one from the innocent lives of men women and children, who were in fact noncombatants, who were systematically worked to death, tortured in some cases, and eventually killed or allowed to die.

The aim of the first photo in the article should serve to establish a connection between the reader and these sorts of real lives claimed by the Nazis. The replacement photos by comparison allow one to view the Holocaust at a distance, as a mere abstraction. That is precisely what should be avoided in a recounting of the Holocaust. Bus stop (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

ec--Bus stop, I do understand what you are saying, and you are right except for the one or two points. Besides the idea that it is too shocking for a lead picture, possibly turning people away from the article, another issue has to do with the dignity of human beings who are still alive today, whose parents or loved ones might actually be in that human pile. Also, it is apparently distracting from the purpose of the article, as illustrated by your own notice (I think it was you?) of details (eg circumcision) that we really don't want people getting hung up on in the first moments of looking at this article. Stellarkid (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And we've fizzled once again. Bus stop, I'm sorry but consensus seems to be against using an image this graphic in the intro. I'm swapping photos around now. Does anyone have more details about the image that was in the intro, particularly where it was taken? The current caption worked in the lede but seems a little too vague in the body of the article, and unless I'm overlooking something the image's page only lists the organization that owns the copyright on the image. -- Vary | (Talk) 18:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Vary, please don't act on your own. You don't have "consensus." We are using the Talk page at this stage to discuss this. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, as I said, I believe we do have consensus. This discussion has dragged on for more than a month with a clear majority agreeing with concerns raised that the image is too intense or otherwise inappropriate for the lede. At the time of my post there had been no activity in this discussion for 24 hours, the last being Stellarkid's succinct summary of said concerns just above me. "Consensus" does not require 100% agreement - if it did, very little would ever actually get done around here. And please be careful about how you use 'undo'; it's often considered rude, especially in a discussion like this one, to use a generic edit summary like the one generated by automated or semi-automated reversion methods. -- Vary | (Talk) 19:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Vary, there need not be discussion for 24 hours. This editor, while not supporting the placement of the present image, is not posting to support its removal. The point of Barnabypage's post is to counter an argument which you would consider in support of "consensus." There are more points to be touched upon. It is a very much active discussion. Sorry about using 'undo.' Offense was not intended. It just seems you are rushing things. Barely did I have a chance to read your intentions made known on the Talk page than you had altered the placement of the images. Bus stop (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't take the book cover analogy into account, actually, as I don't think it's terribly apt, but it's just that: an analogy, an illustration of a point, not the point itself. But the fact is that, in my experience at least, we don't hang on to the status quo indefinitely simply because not everyone agrees on a proposed change. And it was my intention for the edits to come very close together, as I felt that the discussion had gone on long enough (since November 18) with no evidence that the outcome was likely to change with further discussion. What points do you feel still need to be covered? -- Vary | (Talk) 19:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Vary, no one has spoken of an indefinite time frame for discussions; I certainly haven't. We are in the midst of a discussion. Please allow that discussion to proceed apace. I was contemplating a reply to Stellarkid. Whether it has been more or less than 24 hours since Stellarkid has posted should not matter all that much. There has certainly been support for the picture presently at the beginning of this article, both in this thread and in the most proximal archive, above.

This is an essentially subjective decision. There is not a "right" and "wrong" about the outcome of this discussion. That is why discussion is even more important in this than in more "cut and dried" points of contention. While Stellarkid still stands in opposition to my preference in this matter, I did not fail to notice that Stellarkid did say, "…I do understand what you are saying, and you are right except…" I consider that a hopeful sign. Please allow these discussions to run their course. Bus stop (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It's not as though I archived the discussion, I just carried out the discussion's current consensus. You were still free to continue to debate the matter, and to revert me if and when you gained more support for you position than there is for the alternatives. The status quo is not king; once there is such solid consensus for a change, the change should be made whether or not there is anyone still willing to debate the matter. If the consensus changes through further discussion, the page can be changed again. 'Consensus' does not mean 'everyone is convinced,' nor does it mean 'everyone has lost interest.' Would you be willing to allow the image that does currently seem to have a broader acceptance than your preferred image to stay at the top of the article until you achieve a consensus to remove it? Vary | (Talk) 20:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Vary, we are discussing this now. Concerned parties are not making that change probably because they understand that there is an ongoing discussion. The ongoing discussion in and of itself represents a loosening of the status quo. Needless to say I don't think the discussion is over. Bus stop (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have posted at the following User's Talk pages asking if they would care to weigh in on this discussion: 4wajzkd02, Markthemac, ThuranX, Lfh and Jpgordon. Bus stop (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

All of whom have previously expressed support on this talk page for your preferred version. This is canvasing, pure and simple, and I know you've been here long enough to know better. -- Vary | (Talk) 14:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Vary, are you really neutral on this? You claim on your Talk page that you have no "preferences" concerning the issue under discussion. If you are aware of so many people supporting the present placement of the image then why are you claiming consensus and editing to remove that image?

I've notified these people to weigh in again because their comments in some cases were made about a month ago. But I don't think consensus considerations should be overlooking something expressed one month ago.

Any other editor can make these changes. Other editors, who presumably do have "preferences," are refraining from doing so. My presumption is that they are content for the moment using the Talk page to reach better editorial agreement. Bus stop (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't cast aspersions. It's true that your position had early support, but consensus, as we all know, can change, and in this discussion it very clearly did. I saw a discussion that had tapered off after a month without any action taken and attempted to move it towards some kind of a resolution. [6] That comment reignited discussion briefly, but then it tapered off again without any change in the apparent consensus, so I carried that consensus out. It's not unusual in a discussion where accusations have been lobbed about of 'whitewashing' and 'sanitizing' for participants to be reluctant to be the ones to carry out the consensus once it has been reached.

It's irrelevant why you chose to notify the editors you did; the important matter is that the people you selected all represent one side of the issue - your side. Whether that was intentional or not, the effect is the same. Why didn't you notify any of the other editors who had contributed to the discussion in the past six weeks but had not participated recently? And will you do so now? They include [User:Slrubenstein]], User:AFriedman, User:DGG, User:Drunken Pirate, User:Thincat, User:Varoon Arya, and User:Stor stark7. -- Vary | (Talk) 16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Vary, are you aware of anyone who is "reluctant" to alter the placement of images? Bus stop (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Why do you assume that, because other editors have stated their opinion without taken action, no action needed to be taken? And again, will you notify the rest of editors the editors who've participated in the discussion that it has resumed? -- Vary | (Talk) 17:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Vary, you were editing the article to reflect the view of the people that you are now asking me to notify. Bus stop (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trying to paint me as some POV warrior. I have explained my reasons for making the change that I did. You may choose to reject those reason and instead think of me as the opposition, I can't help that, but the fact is that right now I am trying to help you to avoid the appearance of canvassing. -- Vary | (Talk) 21:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Vary, OK. I've notified the 6 additional people that you suggested I notify. Bus stop (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Stellarkid, do family members of victims of the Nazis want the enormity of that crime sanitized, or do they want the true facts whatever they might be to come to light? I have actually attended a couple of conferences that were addressed by aging Holocaust survivors. The impression I got was that there was no detail too intimate to be exposed.

You don't know that the present "lead picture" will turn people away from the article. You are surmising that. As was pointed out above, by Barnabypage, anyone coming to the article Holocaust already knows that this is not exactly an article on The Summer of love. (Barnabypage didn't actually, literally say that.)

I don't know if you are actually literally thinking that someone may find a look-alike of a relative lost in the Holocaust in that photo, but that is unlikely; there is not enough photographic clarity for that. I think most victims and families of victims want the truth to be known. Do you know of instances in which concerned parties would rather the reality of the suffering not come to light, based on what "embarrassment" it might bring on individuals?

By the way I didn't have any input to that discussion of circumcision. There is not enough camera resolution to discern such things. Also, a Jew can still be a Jew and not circumcised. Unusual but certainly not unheard of. Bus stop (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, I need to clarify when I said earlier you are right, but... what I meant was you were right in an "aesthetic" sense, though that is not the main issue here. If we were talking simple aesthetics over an artistic presentation of photographs, perhaps. Your first question is based the premise that the use of another photo in the lede sanitizes the article, and I don't agree with that. No one has argued against putting that picture somewhere on the page, and the article as it stands is informative and doesn't attempt to sanitize the Holocaust in any way. While I surmise that your choice of picture will turn people away; you surmise that it will not. I believe people need to "mature into" the picture as they read the article, not be confronted with it right away. The second point was not one of embarrassment but one of simple human dignity, of which there is not much in that photo. I agree with you that we all want the truth to be known. It is just a matter of how we go about doing it. Stellarkid (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead image: arbitrary break 4

Bus stop asked me to take a look at this. Forgive me if I repeat any arguments; it's a long read, so, well, I didn't. This is an interesting issue, certainly, and not one for which there is a right or wrong answer (other than "consensus rules", but that's a given here.) The most important question is, "does the image best represent the subject of the article". Aren't there some photographs taken by Nazis of mass murder being committed? I seem to recall some with pictures of Nazis next to trenches of bodies, for example. Those would show both the victims and the perpetrators. The story of the Holocaust is not that people died; the story is that they were killed. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read all of text in the sections above. In my view, the picture needs to show not only that people were killed, but the way they were killed. By "way", I do not mean the specific technique. The advantage of the current picture is that it clearly illustrates that it was mass murder, it illustrates that the victims were starving, and it illustrates that the corpses were treated without any respect. I would tend to agree, however, that a picture that would be less graphic would be better for the top section of the article, but such a picture still would need to show characteristics of the Holocaust that differentiate it from pictures that would typically illustrate a war crime.  Cs32en  03:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What do others think of this image?

File:Holocaust-WarsawGhetto.gif

Perhaps it could serve as the lead photo? Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's at all clear to someone who doesn't know the context that the civilians in the picture are being persecuted by the soldiers (I assume they are, in fact, Warsaw Jews being taken off to the camps?). Looking at the image in isolation, the soldiers might just as well be protecting them. Barnabypage (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's better as a graphic introduction to the Holocaust. The German soldiers, the men, women and children, the burning of the ghetto in the background - an apt introduction, in all. (Also, if you look, you can see that at least three of the individuals have their hands raised, so I don't see any confusion with the soldiers protecting them; it's clear they're being herded off.) It also introduces the victims as ordinary people with whom the reader can identify rather than a pile of emaciated corpses - which can, depending upon your sensibilities, heighten the impact of the pictures of the dead later on in the article. Can we get the copyright issue straightened out? --Aryaman (talk) 16:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think their hands are raised because they're carrying bags or boxes, aren't they? As another alternative approach, what about a picture of one of the camps - without people? The barbed wire, the rows of barracks etc. are evocative and tell some of the story, at least giving the impression of the Holocaust's vast industrial scale (which is another thing that this picture doesn't, IMHO, achieve). There are some good images at Auschwitz, for example. Apologies if this idea has been suggested before - I've dipped in and out of this discussion a bit. Barnabypage (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the approach to the selected pictures should involve a narrative. From rounding up of civilians in ordinary street dress. To inmates in settings indicating that. To executions. To bodies. That has impact, is logical, and stresses the reader least, dealing with this subject matter. Bus stop (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that picture has any particular obvious meaning. As said, it could just be a generic evacuation; it's not particularly emblematic. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

One problem is that few pictures have any obvious meaning if no further information is being given. My view is that we should ask "Does the image illustrate salient characteristics of the Holocaust or not?" Both images have strengths and weaknesses in that respect.  Cs32en  17:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

We exchange a picture of dead Jews for one of Germany's upper class rich people being escorted out of a war zone with an honor guard? Absolutely OPPOSE. The Current Image, the pile of the dead, is suitable for this article, not this proposed lie. I have NO clue why Bus Stop thought to CANVAS me, and he did violate CANVAS and should be sanctioned, for an opinion to support a pathetic revisionist whitewash spin on the Holocaust. The Shoah was about murdering people, and thus a pile of the murdered bodies is far more suitable for this article than one showing what great kind people the Nazis were. If you use this image, it is the wedge by which other revisionists will turn the entire Holocaust article into a mess. Soon the caption will read 'German soldiers escorting civilians to safety and protection during unlawful American aggressions', and other nonsensical shit. The Image of the dead should stay, and Bus Stop, don't CANVAS me anymore. ThuranX (talk) 20:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh? He asked several people, whose response certainly could not be predicted, to express their opinions. We're doing exactly that. The question wasn't about this one picture; in fact, this picture hadn't even been put up for consideration when he cast about for more input. But thanks for your reasoned and careful addition to this conversation. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Just his bad luck that I arrived in time for this, then, eh? And he CANVASsed because he knew I supported the original image's continued inclusion and placement. The question is most certainly about that one image, all the other chatter is just other proposals from the anti-Holocaust crowd on how to get rid of all the evidence, so they can start all over again. Die4Dixie was a bigoted flat out holocaust denier, and yet here we are, two months on, entertaining him with hours of debate on whether or not to give him what he wants, and with how much whipped cream? Leave the image alone, shutter this entire sad sack of apologist debate, fuck all of these 'Think of The Children' emotional appeals, and get on with better things. ThuranX (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I found the sister-image to the one posted by Bus stop, the two having been taken within minutes of one another.

The image's page identifies two of the people in the foreground as Avraham and Yehudit Neyer. There's no copyright issue here, so seeing as the two images are nearly identical, I wouldn't see a problem using this one instead. --Aryaman (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment I think the Holocaust-WarsawGhetto.gif image would be better suited for an article about the ghettoes of Nazi Germany rather than the Holocaust itself. Sensitive eyes may not want to be greeted with emaciated corpses at the beginning of an article, but I think most people who read Wikipedia know what to expect when they load the Holocaust article. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this an idea? A collapsible window. I think the image should be by default in the open position. But someone choosing to read the text without the image could close it. I am referring to the image of stacked corpses presently at the beginning of the article. Bus stop (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

using it as a lead image but hidden seems totally contradictory to the basic idea of having a lead image in the first place. The lead image of an article is meant to be seen conspicuously. DGG ( talk ) 02:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, thanks for the post on my Talk page. While I believe the picture of the corpses is too graphic, the pictures of the people with the soldiers, in my opinion, are not graphic enough. As per Barnabypage, it's not clear what the soldiers are doing to the nervous looking people. However, the pictures of the soldiers with the people do make a very important point--that these were ordinary people leading very stable lives who were driven to their deaths by a crazy regime. Perhaps the lead could have a panel of multiple images, one of which is this, another might be the picture of the bunk or one of people in forced labor, and another might be a reduced size version of the original image? If there's consensus that a single picture can't capture all the horrors of the Holocaust, multiple pictures might do a better job. --AFriedman (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DGG, its silly to have a hidden photo in the lead. I think the main focus for the lead photo should be to demonstrate what the holocaust was...namely a planned mass murder of a group of people. I think the current lead photo File:Holocaust123.JPG illustrates that well and should be kept. I find the arguments relating to the image being too graphic as nonsensical, and the only problem I can see with the lead photo is that its IQ is poor.File:Rows of bodies of dead inmates fill the yard of Lager Nordhausen, a Gestapo concentration camp.jpg is good in that shows alot of people, but its hard to distinguish them in the photo. The current lead though you can at least distinguish the people, which I think makes it superior to the alternative suggestions so far.Chhe (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't suggest a hidden photo. I suggested a hide-able photo with the default position open. Bus stop (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I see. But, still I think its a silly suggestion. Wouldn't it take someone just as long to scroll down to remove the image from view as to click the hide button? And the whole idea of having a hide button itself seems to suggest that looking at a picture one thinks to be grotesque is worse if done for a longer time. Why is that? Why is looking at such a picture for 5 seconds any worse than looking at it for 10 seconds, or a minute? The whole up in arms over this photo being "graphic" seems very babyish to me. The whole holocaust was graphic its unavoidable.Chhe (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The image provides 0% context. No narrative context, no informative context. It's a pile of naked, emaciated corpses, and having it in the lead is the graphic equivalent of writing "The Holocaust was an event which resulted in big stacks of dead people". Not exactly the level of quality I've come to expect from key articles in Wikipedia. --Aryaman (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Aryaman — The image is suggestive of great loss — loss not only before death, but also after death. Even in death there is the possibility of respect. Does the photo indicate that the dead were handled with respect? Obviously not. Bus stop (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Chhe — I completely agree with you. I think that the image presently at the beginning of the article is consistent with the subject matter of the article and should not be moved from its present place. Nor do I even think there is any reader who could not read the article without closing a collapsible window to that photo. I don't really understand the arguments against it. I am just trying to accommodate those arguments. The function of closing a picture would accommodate such arguments, I think. Bus stop (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The idea of a collapsible window is right out, for all sorts of reasons. It's quite appropriate that people react with horror at horrible things. My only quibble is the particular choice of horrible thing to lead the article with, and I'd like a picture that indicates the cause as well as the effect. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know what people think of having a panel of multiple images in the lede. --AFriedman (talk) 06:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

this too I think contradicts the idea of having a single picture in the lead. We should be able to find one that is enough to make the point without being actually visually horrifying. It would be good to have one that makes it explicit visually without the caption that this is the Holocaust, not one of the many other massacres. I suppose one with a Nazi flag would do it best, but perhaps Nazi uniforms would do. They remain instantly recognizable for what the were. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)