Talk:Holocaust (disambiguation)/Archive 1

Deletion discussion

This article has been listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion in the past. See /deletion for the discussion archive.

Black Holocaust numbers - It is "generally accepted" (and hotly debated) that the total number of slaves transported during the whole of the Atlantic slave trade is in the order of 12 million of which approx 10.5 million survived the crossing. Of the total number - the original figure of 10 million dead being 10% of the trade would imply 90 million arrived alive, from a demographic perspective this is totally unrealistic. Of the percentage - It was in the interest of the ship owners (and the captains who usually were on a cut of the profit) that their merchandise arrived alive, ship's captains who lost more than 10% did not keep their position long - there are still slave ship manifests confirming this (many still held in Liverpool)

The Black Holocaust in America? John Kenney 04:13, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Also, the Palestinian Holocaust in the Middle East? John Kenney 04:13, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Seriously, this page is deeply dubious. The propaganda used by extremist groups should not be the basis of a disambiguation page. John Kenney 04:15, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, he terms are both used, and, more to the point, they're used in mainstream academic contexts. (Both have come up this year in classes I've taken) I don't like either term, honestly, but they are used. (I'm in fact sitting three feet from a book called The Black Holocaust for Beginners). And if you google Palestinian Holocaust, you will get results.

So the terms are in use, and need to be referred to, or else we're committing POV. Snowspinner 04:16, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

The Black Holocaust? I am deeply dubious that this is used in mainstream academic contexts. At any rate, the disambiguation needs to be presented differently, at the very least. John Kenney 04:22, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, OK, why don't we try to hash out a compromise before you go VfDing a page within ten minutes of its creation. The Black Holocaust is a term used to refer to the death of Africans on the slave ships, and within black studies in general - Spike Lee (Who, while not exactly mainstream, is at least a major figure) uses the term in interviews, and the book I mentioned was assigned in an extremely popular class this year at the University of Chicago. Google getes over 500,000 results. Snowspinner 04:25, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

For Black Holocaust? I got 5,820. None of the early results looks very reputable. And Spike Lee may be major, but he is surely not academic. As far as VfD, I started to do it before you responded, and wanted to finish (I'm still horrible at setting up the listings). At any rate, we need to be very careful about using terms like this that are not widely accepted, and that a huge number of people would find to be rather offensive. John Kenney 04:28, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I got only three for "Balck holocaust"... Oh... Rich Farmbrough, 18:05 11 December 2006 (GMT).

"Results 1 - 10 of about 609,000 for Black Holocaust. (0.53 seconds)" - Google, just now. Spike Lee isn't academic, no, but he's another instance of the term. As for using terms - I'm certainly not proposing that Holocaust become a disambig page, or that Slavery be moved to Black Holocaust. I just think that there should be recognition of other usages of the term. Controversial or no, the usages happen, and thus need to be documented. Snowspinner 04:31, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

You have to use "Black Holocaust" in quotes. Otherwise you get any pages in which the two words are both used. joh n 04:43, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, I see how you got the 5,820 figure - I wasn't doing a phrase search. That said, I don't think reputability is the issue here. The term is in use. We should reflect that. Even if the people who use it are bigots. The people who use nigger are bigots, but it has an article. The term holocaust has been co-opted, and that should be reflected in a NPOV manner - i.e. one that simply states who uses the term and how they use it. Snowspinner 04:44, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

The dictionary.com definition of holocaust is great destruction resulting in extensive loss of life, especially by fire. Now what's happened to Blacks throughout history is terrible, and what is currently happening to Palestinians is extremely unfortunate (although not entirely unprovoked), but they hardly count as "extensive loss of life". Can we at least write something to the effect of "these terms are commonly used, but they do not reflect actual situations." --Caliper 04:36, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I did a HELL of a pile of reading yesterday, Caliper, and over and over again, numbers between 10 million and 24 million came up as the number of black deaths on the Antlantic crossing. Assuming a very conservative 10 million, I fail to see how this term cannot be fairly coopted by the blacks. Denni 04:57, 2004 May 25 (UTC)

This is one among many reasons that it is a good idea to read the entire talk page before commenting on old news. --Caliper 05:05, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Some estimates of the number of blacks who died on slave ships exceed the number of Jews who died in the death camps. I'm opposed to a blanket statement that these do not reflect actual situations, therefore - that's a terribly POV thing to say. I've already put the terms in quotes so as to indicate dubiousness as to their accuracy, however, and I've noted that the terms are controversial in the introduction. Snowspinner 04:41, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

There was certainly extensive loss of life in the Middle Passage, which is what the term is apparently used to refer to. But that term, at least, is not commonly used, as far as I can gather. I'm not sure how commonly "Palestinian Holocaust" is used, but I'd agree that the Palestinian situation does not really amount to a Holocaust in any real sense of the term. joh n 04:42, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

And I would agree with you. A number of Palestinian activists would not. This is where NPOV comes in - we acknowledge the term is used, acknowledge that its controversial, and leave it at that. Snowspinner 04:45, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, maybe - but the article still has a really long way to go. But I'd still dispute that the term "Black Holocaust" is widely used, class at the University of Chicago or no. Again, there are only 9 articles in all of JSTOR that use the phrase "Black Holocaust" at all. Only the Journal of Black Studies uses the term qithout qualification. There are only 5,820 hits for the phrase on the whole web, most of them of dubious, and only 1,500 for "Palestinian Holocaust" many of them also highly dubious. joh n 04:49, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for wide usage. I'm arguing for substantial usage. It's not the normal term, no, but it's a term that is used. The Journal of Black Studies, while obviously POV in some ways, is a pretty good indication of what's going on in Black Studies right now. I'm happy to entertain discussion on how the page needs work - believe me, I expected plenty of it when I made the page. But let's work on it, not delete it. Snowspinner 04:52, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Link from a current newspaper that indicates usage of the term "Palestinian Holocaust". Snowspinner 04:46, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

And I don't believe anything the Jerusalem Post has to say about terms used by Palestinians. joh n 04:50, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, but I think that's probably not a universally held view. I mean, again, I think the people who use the term are crazy. But they're there. And the usage of the term should be described. Not endorsed. Described. Snowspinner 04:52, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Oh man, I completely didn't even think of the ships between Africa and North America. I was concentrating on what happened while in the United States. I take it back. --Caliper 04:51, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

TUF-KAT's changes are most welcome. The page might be worth keeping now. john k 04:54, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

(from before John Kenney's post, via edit conflict) I agree that the use of these terms in this way should be documented (isn't the Armenian genocide called a Holocaust sometimes?), but I think the original way it was presented implied that the uses are equally common/valid. So, I have proposed a new version (see article page). Tuf-Kat 04:59, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

I've seen your new version, agreed that it helped a lot, and modified it slightly. Nice editing. :) Snowspinner 05:01, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I added many more uses. Googling shows at least a few hits for all these, some more than others. I don't believe that all should be kept, but I don't know enough about history to have a knowledgeable opinion about which ones are real terms and which aren't. (for obvious reasons, trying to google for the word "holocaust" and not get results for the Jewish one is very difficult and prone to misrepresenting actual usage) So, discuss away and delete those which should be deleted. Tuf-Kat 22:51, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Good catch John - I didn't notice the "controversial and offensive' line disappear - sorry if I accidentally deleted it. Wasn't my intention to. Snowspinner 23:21, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner: this copied from VfD discussion, in case you missed it there.

• Keep. Legitimate disambig, legitimate terminology, what's POV here? I've seen all these terms except Canadian Holocaust, which in the sense of mistreatment of First Nations people, seems to spring from one title alone: Hidden From History: The Canadian Holocaust - The Untold Story of the Genocide of Aboriginal Peoples by Church and State in Canada. The story of the Beothuk Indians is a cruel one, and there are many reliable accounts of savage treatment by Europeans of natives, but this term is not well-known or in any sort of common use. I have therefore taken the liberty of removing it, but am comfortable with the presentation and purpose of the article as a whole. Denni 03:54, 2004 May 23 (UTC)
  • Snowspinner, I am going to delete the reference to Canadian Holocaust again. If you intend to restore it, please do me and everyone else a favor and do a little research first. A Google search for "Canadian Holocaust" brings up 862 hits. Re-searching with the term "Canadian Holocaust" -"Hidden From History" brings up 640 hits, not one of which has to do with native concerns. They relate either to Canadian Holocaust survivor groups or to Canadian Holocaust deniers such as Ernst Zundel or Jim Keegstra. The other 222 hits all relate to the single publication, "Hidden From History: The Canadian Holocaust..." Your credibility is on the line. Denni 05:22, 2004 May 23 (UTC)
    • I rather resent your tone, both here and in the edit summary. In the original posting of the Candian Holocaust, it was coupled with two smaller terms (Native American Holocaust and Aboriginal Holocaust). Native American Holocaust makes 454, which is within spitting distance of the 500. I've thus restored a version of the page with Native American Holocaust being the main entry, and Canadian and Aboriginal Holocaust being offshoot mentions of that. Snowspinner 05:43, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
      • Resent away, sir. This is not about liking. This is about accuracy. Let me just point out a few obvious things. First, I voted to keep your article. What did you miss there? Second, Native American is not native Canadian. While we didn't exactly treat our natives with respect, neither did we use them as moving targets nearly to the extent the Americans did (if you don't believe me, read a little on the relationship between the natives and the French Canadian fur traders in the Canadian northwest). Hm, and which country did Sitting Bull take his people afteer Custer tried to wipe them out? Third, if we're talking holocausts, I can find one, that's 1, that's I reference to a Canadian Holocaust involving natives, and that is the reference I cited. While you were busy stewing, I spent my time Googling, and noted these Holocaust sources(each of these with multiple sources, not just one/1/I): Dresden (148), Tokyo (266), Cambodian (1510), Hindu (1760), Sudra (120), Christian (834), Gay (3380), Kashmir (58), and Silicone (yes, silicone) (586). That was out of the only the first two hundred of over a million pages using the search term "Holocaust -Jewish -Jew -Israel -Germany -Nazi". So do your work properly, sir. As long as you continue to make assertions about a holocaust which did not occur, while demonstrating that your research skills seem to have overlooked some fairly big other holocaust-like events, I'm just going to have to continue to change it. I have no interest in getting into an edit war; neither do I have any interest in allowing slanderous terms to go unchallenged. Denni 06:17, 2004 May 23 (UTC)
        • Yes. And discussions of accuracy can be made without pithy comments and absurd allegations of slander. I do not consider this "my" page, nor do I could your vote to keep it as any particular entitlement on your part. Feel free to add Cambodian, hindu, Christian, Gay, and Silicone holocausts, as they all meet the 500 standard. All appear, based on that Googling data, to be valid entries here. I haven't been working to get this page to contain every Holocaust in existence. I put it up with two entries, as you'll note if you check the history. So it's hardly a failure of my research - I haven't done any. I put up a partial article, fully expecting it to get added to. So don't try getting high and mighty with me about research skills. This is not an academic journal. It's a collaborative effort. I put in what I knew off the top of my head. No more, no less.

As I've said elsewhere, I think the term "holocaust" is poor form for any of these cases, though, so really, arguing for the lack of validity of the term doesn't phase me. The question is whether the term is in use. It is. It is not in widespread use, but it is in enough use to mention as an analagous case to the Native American Holocaust. Indeed, it should be mentioned - whether it is an absurd accusation or not. Why? Because we report claims that are made. Not just true ones. Not just popular ones. But pretty much all of them that are remotely noteworthy. Honestly, when I pared it down on the grounds of 500, I thought it might be overly stringent. So the fact that it's one book that's alleged this doesn't really persuade me to delete it. Especially not in the heavily qualified form it currently takes in the article. Snowspinner 06:49, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

(Backing off a bit) I also did a search for Canada + genocide and was able to find five separate source articles. While Americans tended to be more proactive about wiping out native people, we Canadians preferred to put them in residential schools, rip them away from their culture, beat them, molest them, and eventually starve them to death.

I believe the article is a valid one, and I also believe that one thing it ought to discuss is the nature of the term "holocaust". Just as "gay" can no longer mean "happy and cheerful", so "holocaust" may have to broaden its meaning to include what would in the past have been referred to (and still should, in my estimation) as "genocide." Language changes and we are but its users.

I hope you can be comfortable with the compromise wording I have offered. And BTW, I may be in the minority here, but I'm getting to be an old fart around here and so I get to say things some five-second-old weenie can't. I think a new article should be "your" article for the first twenty-four hours, unless it's an obvious candidate for a speedy delete. After that, it's unprotected. I say so because writing a good article takes time, and if somebody jumps in and starts mucking about after you've only got some of the first rough done, it can be quite perturbing. Denni 07:08, 2004 May 23 (UTC)

Even by those standards, this article is hardly mine. :) In any case, I think the current wording remains a good midpoint, though I'd be sympathetic to "Occasionally, but much more rarely, the terms" instead of simply "occasionally." Snowspinner 15:15, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Why there is too much "favoritism" towards the jews and why it is "THE" holocaust, whilst there were many other genocides on different people around that time and even different nations almost half the world away. Also, why is the history of the Armenian massacre and the killing of the Russian Communists ignored even though it was happening at the same time =/? So the next time someone uses the term "the holocaust" clarify their statement by saying, "Which holocaust? The armenian massacre, the Russian Communist slaughter, the Cambodian Massacre, the Darfur Conflict, Nazi Facist Slaughterers, or just our human instinct of killing people for the sake of superiority, dictatorship, or just plain war; of which has been going on since the beginning of human tribal wars." I'm not a neo-nazi I'm just saying that this article doesn't sound neutral to me. I do not care about the history of the naming but the article sounds to favored to the Nazi German era. I have also discussed this on another page. --µWiki Talk / Contributions (YouWiki) 18:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

I've taken the liberty of listing this on NPOV. It'd get there soon enough anyway, and the gods and goddesses know someone's gonna want to bitch about something. Denni 07:08, 2004 May 24 (UTC)

I'm not so sure... It seems clear from the article that this term is used by some groups to describe their own sufferings, but that generally, it is used for the mass murders in World War 2 and that other uses may be found offensive. I feel like all sides are represented by this article. If it has one problem, it is that all sides are in fact overrepresented. It's a disambiguation page! It's supposed to point you to other pages, not give a huge summary of their contents! --Caliper 03:39, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

It's in an odd position, though - most of the terms don't actually redirect (Though I should probably make it so they do. Ah, a nice easy project for the evening}. Snowspinner 03:45, 25 May 2004 (UTC)~

Order

Can we discuss the order that these should appear in? Up until now, I think they've just been added in the order that people have thought of them. I'm of the opinion that terms which refer to parts of the World War 2 capital-H-Holocaust, should go at the top, since they are naturally most affiliated to the common usage of the word. After that, I'm not sure how to order it. Maybe genocides first, and entries such as the Canadian Holocaust (which doesn't seem to have involved death or fire) at the bottom. Nuclear holocaust can go at the bottom, although it seems to me that it's the most commonly used term on the entire page. --Caliper 04:27, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Barring any real sense of the relative frequency of the terms, I think chronological order is probably the best. Or alphabetical. Or something else non-judgmental. Snowspinner 04:30, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I could go for alphabetical. But I'd really prefer grouping terms which apply to the same thing (eg. Jewish, Gay and Gypsy holocausts) and follow that in order of how commonly the events in question are actually refered to as holocausts. The Armenian holocaust was mentioned on the Holocaust page, until I removed it in favour of the disambig. I would put that next. --Caliper 04:41, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I listed these pages in chronological order, for the simple reason that that way, no one can get his/her shirt in a knot about being above or below someone else. Nuclear remains at the bottom because it's hypothetical, the other two because I don't think we have the right terms yet. I think "ecological holocaust" is more in mind for the forest example. I don't like alphabetical, because some of these go under more than one name. I think trying to determine how often these terms are actually applied (beyond "occasionally", "usually" and "always") would be a project of huge scope, but if you want to take it on, Caliper...Denni 04:52, 2004 May 25 (UTC)

It did indeed take longer than I expected, but this is how I feel it should be ordered, according to common usage:

• The Holocaust - The nazi genocide is really "THE" Holocaust these days, and should go first, as it does now.
  • The Gay Holocaust - A sub category of the Holocaust
  • The Gypsy Holocaust - Another sub category. I've listed the sub categories in alphabetical order, because I see no other way of doing it.
• The Armenian Holocaust - As far as I can tell, pretty much everybody uses "Armenian Genocide and Armenian Holocaust" interchangably.
• The Hindu Holocaust - This should be subgrouped by someone who knows what they're talking about. There seem to have been quite a few events refered to as the Hindu Holocaust.
• The Black Holocaust - It's fairly common, although not everyone uses it.
• The Ukrainian Holocaust - About the same as the Black Holocaust. I listed it second to keep with Denni's chronological order.
• The Chinese Holocuast - Again, a step down in usage, it is far more often refered to as the Rape of Nanking or the Nanjing Massacre.
• Aboriginal Holocaust - Again, most people have other terms for it.
• Native American Holocaust - People seem unlikely to call it a Holocaust
• The Palestinian Holocaust - About half the stuff I've found on the Palestinian Holocaust says that using the term "Palestinian Holocaust" is rediculous. It does get used, but even pro-Palestinian groups tend to use other terminology.
• The Sudra Holocaust - Everything I've read describes it as either a theory or a myth.
• The Irish Holocaust - Most of the stuff I read on this claimed that the British purposfully caused the Irish Potato famine, something which I sincerely doubt.
• The Canadian Holocaust - As far as I can tell, there is one book source that uses this term, and a bunch of web sites that cite it. Indeed, I have a few friends who are Native Canadians, and none of them have heard this phrase.

I'm very open to discussion and changes. The stuff below the Chinese Holocaust man need some reordering. The Irish and Palestinian Holocausts in particular may be moved up. I've put them lower on the list because most of the places I found them talked about a lot of stuff that simply isn't true... I'm not even sure we have the science today that would allow us to cause the potato famine. --Caliper 22:12, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, Caliper, I just don't see a need for any organization but the chronological. While I applaud your bravery in attempting to track down the relative usages of these terms (and my guess is still that yours is not much better than a guess -- how many times is a single source cited in a list of Google hits -- see my comments to Snowspinner above), this is not exactly a lengthy article. Any attempt to impose a non-chronological order will bring immediate criticism from someone, and rightfully so -- how many people actually did die on those slave ships? Was it the lowwer estimate of ten million or the higher estimate of 25 million? While it makes no difference to me if this article gets organized by latitude and longitude in the long run, I still think chronological is the least headachy way of doing it. Denni 01:53, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Denni - By "someone", I assume you refer to yourself. It is not the number of millions that I am trying to order this by, but the order in which people are most likely to look for a listing. It is highly unlikely that someone will come through looking for the Irish Holocaust, while the Armenian Holocaust is a common term. I take offence to the assumption that I looked only for Google hits. That would not take several days, and I would certainly not put the results forward as accurate.

The fact that you expect people to make this difficult does not mean we shouldn't attempt to order this as best we can. --Caliper 04:49, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

By "someone", I do not refer to myself. I refer to any number of groups who believe that "their" holocaust was somehow more important than someone else's. Playing by the numbers does not cut it either - the estimates of holocaust deaths are merely that - estimates - and in some cases they range over a very broad spectrum depending on whose resources you use (and there is a large number of very reputable sources who will provide widely divergent estimates). I regret that you took offense to my comments, as it was not my intent to give offense, but that issue belongs to you, not to me. There are exactly two ways to organize this list so it remains as NPOV as possible, chronologically or alphabetically. A chronological listing provides a context for these events which an alphabetical listing cannot. That is why I feel it is the best of all options. Denni☯ 00:44, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)

Redirects

I've redirected most of the holocausts in question now. There were four, as Caliper found when he made them all links, that I didn't get. Hindu Holocaust covers such along period that I couldn't pick what to link to, Canadian Holocaust I think I just missed (I'll fix it shortly), Gay Holocaust, again, I think I just missed (I'll get it), and Ukrainian Holocaust I mispelled - it works now. So the only one I can't quite pick an article for is Hindu Holocaust. Snowspinner 04:30, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't redirect pages have something to do with the events in question? I havn't looked at all of them, but the Canadian Holocaust page redirects to a short article on the First Nations of Canada, which doesn't even mention mistreatment. --Caliper 04:46, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes. This is a fault of Wikipedia. Have a look at how puny the article on African-American slavery is. I linked to the articles that have the best chance of having any useful information. If they don't have it right now, then someone with mor eof a knowledge about it than I do should add it in. Snowspinner 04:51, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we should create a page. Or leave the link blank until someone else does. I don't like linking to pages that have nothing to do with the context of the link. At least the African-American slavery page deals with African-American slavery, however puny it is. Whatever you do, I suppose I'll go along with it... I'm going to sleep. --Caliper 05:05, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Genocide/Holocaust

As I understand it (and please feel free to disagree) Holocaust (in its usage to describe an historical event) and the very word 'genocide' both date from 1945 and were both used to describe the same event, hence both have suffered from the same slippage in usage, except that genocide has suffered from a lot more questionable usage. In light of this, I am removing the current references to genocide viz-a-viz holocaust.--XmarkX 15:38, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Genocide was created as a general term in 1944, according to the OED, to refer to the extermination of an ethnic group. Holocaust was coined in 1942, used generally to describe Nazi actions as "a holocaust", but did not become used as a proper noun "the Holocaust" until the 1950s. So I think the distinguishing is relevent - genocide was never a proper noun. Holocaust, although not initially one, became one. Snowspinner 15:45, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

I think genocide is a rather general term used to describe mass murders such as "the Holocaust". Holocaust is a specific term that refers to a specific event... and that was then used in reference to other events in order to liken them to THE Holocaust... --Caliper 17:09, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You would be incorrect. The 1913 Webster's Dictionary (which predates the death camps by some considerable time) provides the definitions of 'holocaust' as

1. A burnt sacrifice; an offering, the whole of which was consumed by fire, (italics mine) among the Jews and some pagan nations.

2. Sacrifice or loss of many lives, as by the burning of a theater or a ship.

oddly enough, for a dictionary published in 1913, it also includes the definition

'The mass killing of millions of Jews by the Nazis during the period from 1933 to 1945 in Germany and German-occupied lands; usually referred to as The Holocaust. In Hebrew, the same event is referred to by the word Shoah.'

While this definition is certainly correct, it gives me pause to wonder what other definitions in this particular resource have been "modified" to suit current events. Hmmm... Denni☯ 01:04, 2004 Jun 16 (UTC)

I was speaking of common usage, more than dictionary definition. That certainly is interesting :-)... Sort of like that whole "It was a beautiful day in Dachau" thing, but less of a lie. Sort of. --Caliper 04:43, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Guessing that was an online misrepresentation of a 1913 dictionary if it said that. A real one could not unless Websters had a couple decades foreknowledge of what was to come. --Ranze (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

native americans

Between the arrival of the first Europeans in the late 1400s and the most recent violent standoffs of the 20th century, some 112 million Native Americans are said to have perished. Millions?? Shouldn't this estimation be in the order of 50.000 people? Walden 00:30, 2004 Aug 26 (UTC)

50,000? The numbers I have heard were far closer to 112 million, or perhaps higher. Is disease included? Sam [Spade] 01:10, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Removed Palestinian holocaust

The term Palestinian Holocaust is sometimes used to describe the treatment of Palestinians during the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict The Palestinian Red Cross reports 2780 deaths since the beginning of the Intifadah; far fewer Israeli Jews have died in this same conflict.

The paragraph clearly relates to the al-Aqsa Intifada and was removed from the following reasons:

1. The term "Palestinian holocaust" is rarely used, and only by fringes of exteremist and terrorist groups.
2. It is dissacurate: "far fewer Israelis" - at least 1000 Israel were killed during the al-Aqsa Intifada).

MathKnight 22:15, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Besides the normal term "Holocaust," none of these terms is widely used. That's no reason to remove this particular one. And, even accepting the numbers you have given, 1/3 as many doesn't qualify as "far fewer" anymore? john k 23:25, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From the very top of this page: "So the terms are in use, and need to be referred to, or else we're committing POV. Snowspinner 04:16, 21 May 2004 (UTC)" The term "Palestinian holocaust" is in use and gets Google hits. Therefore, it is included here. Denni☯ 00:03, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

I affarid that Google test here might be misleading. When typing "Palestinian holocaust" in Google I found many articles about Holocaust denial in the Palestinian Authority, while few that refer to the Al-Aqsa Intifada as an holocaust. I suggest you back your thessis with reliable source that there are serious and considerable groups that actually use the term "holocaust" to the 2nd intifada, otherwise either remove this paragraph or state explictly who use it. MathKnight 08:36, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the meanwhile, I've inserted an attributed version.

The term Palestinian Holocaust is sometimes used, mainly by exteremist Arab and Islamist groups, to describe the treatment of Palestinians during the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict The Palestinian Red Crescent reports 2780 deaths since the beginning of the al-Aqsa Intifada; 1000 Israeli Jews have killed in this same conflict. The use of this term regarding the the Palestinian conflict is highly contraversial and considered to be a form of antisemitism and abuse of the Holocaust. [1] However, in Arab society it is common to equate Nazis with Zionists and claim the Jewish Holocaust was Zionist fraud. [2], [3]

MathKnight 09:34, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• While I appreciate your willingness to compromise, I would note that this revised version is heavily loaded with POV. I will modify it to remove what I can. Thanks for the attributions. Denni☯ 02:59, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)
  • I see the changes you've made and they are o.k. with me. I think if we continue positive attidute the dispute will be resilved. MathKnight 21:15, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kirishtan Holocaust

I deleted the following sentence:

The term Kirishtan Holocaust is used to describe the approximately one million Japanese Christians who were martyred over a 250 year period beginning 1597 February 5.

The term Kirishtan (Kirishitan is correct) Holocaust isn't common at all. Only keikyo.com and some webpages referring to it use this term. --Nanshu 13:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• That is adequate. Other holocaust terms here are used only by small numbers of people. This article is not about "common" terms. If it were, only the Jewish holocaust would be listed, and the black holocaust, which certainly killed many more people, would not. That there are 191 google hits for the term "kirishitan holocaust" is reason enough for it to be on this list. All the information at my disposal says there is no doubt that the holocaust occurred or that the number of catholics murdered is accurate. Can you provide evidence to the contrary? (By the way, when converting from Japanese to English, as you know, spelling is always problematic. This term may also be spelled 'kirustan'.) Denni☯ 20:47, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

The article is about other uses, but not about any use whatsoever; should we include the "Dairy Holocaust" because it gets two Google hits? The term "Kirishtan Holocaust" seems to have been invented by one website; all other Google hits are either links to that website, or references to it or to Wikipedia usage. No, it's not enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I will note that many of the sites choose to use this term themselves, in their description of the location to which they are linking. I also think those who describe themselves as keikyo have, given that this event seems to be quite legit, the right to describe their persecution in whatever terms they want. However, I will wait for evidence that the term is more widespread before attempting to reinsert it in the article. (By the way, the "Dairy Holocaust" argument was more than just a little disingenuous, dontchathink? For Wikipedia's purposes, 190 non-related hits would have been more than adequate to accept the term. "Canadian holocaust", which I sought unsuccessfully to remove, is predicated on far fewer.) Denni☯ 00:17, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)

I suggest that these sites used the name when linking simply because the originating site did. Regarding "Dairy Holocaust", I was trying to use an example of a usage of "Holocaust" with a very small number of independent hits. At what point does a usage become legitimate? 2 hits? 24 hits ("Buddhist Holocaust")? 32 hits ("Mexican Holocaust")? 44 hits ("Sudanese Holocaust")? 191 hits? 640 hits (which, by the way, is how many hits "Canadian Holocaust" gets when I google it)? Personally I think they (and most of the ones listed on the page) are all distasteful attempts to piggyback on The Holocaust, in some cases with sordid and unsavory motivations. That said, if these generally idiotic usages can't be entirely discounted, at least the line must be drawn somewhere. And in my view, a usage promoted by one website only does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jayig has already explained what I want to say, so I just add a note on 190 Google hits. Google hits are greatly influenced by Wikipedia. Actually, before I created an article about Puxian Wannu, it got no hit (in Latin alphabet), but now it gets 571 hits! It is expected that once Wikipedia stop using the term "Kirishtan Holocaust," its Google hits will be reduced. --Nanshu 11:33, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not only is the website in question obscure, it also contradicts commonly accepted history: there were never more than about 500,000 Christian converts in Japan, and in fact the very existence of this "Keikyo" Christians prior to Spanish/Portugese mission very much seems to be a fringe theory. --Brazzy 20:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Endeorian

My removal of the Endorian Holocaust has been reverted with the argument:

restoring a removed other usage. It's listed after a Scottish heavy metal band and a comic book supervillain, it seems to be in good company for its relative prominence

I strongly disagree. While the Scottish heavy metal band and the comic book supervillain may be relative unknown and their choice of names may be considered tasteless, the Endorian Holocaust is in addition a fan-promoted neologism and original research. The google hits for this lemma are mostly on Wikipedia and mirrors.

• Wikipedia:Neologism
• Wikipedia:No original research
• http://www.google.com/search?q=%22endorian+holocaust%22start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Pjacobi 07:36, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

• • So as not to involve you in an edit war, I wil take the next stab at removing it. Denni☯ 05:05, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Clean up to comply with manual of style

This disambiguation article is very difficult to naviagate, due to all the excess information on it. I am working on a replacment that better conforms to the Manual of style at User:Commander Keane/Sandbox.--Commander Keane 04:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have made some major revisions to the article (which I will upload in 5 minutes). Some information I did not put in the new version, it follows:

The term Sudra Holocaust has been used in a version of the Aryan invasion theory, according to which the invaders (c. 1500 BC) exterminated virtually the entire population of the Indus Valley Civilization, including the Sudras. The term Hindu Holocaust (~600 CE - present) is used by some to describe the almost continuous periods during which foreign armies have occupied India, beginning with the conquering of Sindh by Muhammad-bin-Qasim in 711 CE and continuing to this day with ongoing hostilities between India and Pakistan, primarily over Kashmir. The cost in over 1400 years of intermittent conflict has been in the many millions of lives. The term Aboriginal Holocaust has been used to describe the treatment of indigenous people in Australia by the European colonists and their descendants. Between the arrival of the first white settlers in 1788 and the 1920s, the Aboriginal population was in absolute decline, as a result of disease, malnutrition and/or murder; several hundred thousand people died. In addition, until the 1970s, many Aboriginal children were removed from their families and placed either in residential schools, or with foster families and were denied contact with family members. Physical and sexual abuse, as well as the denial of basic human rights, was also common. Since the late 1990s, many of these matters have been disputed by historians such as Keith Windschuttle, in books such as The Fabrication of Aboriginal History (2002). Windschuttles's work has inspired a host of rebuttals. The term Palestinian Holocaust is sometimes used, mainly by extremist Arab and Islamist groups, to describe the treatment of Palestinians during the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict The Palestinian Red Crescent reports 2780 deaths since the beginning of the al-Aqsa Intifada; 1000 Israeli Jews have killed in this same conflict. The use of this term regarding the Palestinian conflict is highly controversial and considered by some to be a form of antisemitism and disrespect of the Holocaust The term AIDS Holocaust is used by some to describe the situation in Africa, where the United Nations predicts up to 80 million deaths by 2025 [4] if no effective intervention occurs. Furthermore, activist groups sometimes compare their causes to holocausts -- an environmentalist, for example, may speak of a "holocaust of old-growth forests" and an anti-abortion activist may speak of a "holocaust of babies".

Commander Keane 10:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

"Sudra holocaust" is an extremely unhappy term, apparently coined by Dravidian nationalists to even more inflame the Indo-Aryan migration discussion. It is little more than a classical case of "activist groups sometimes compare their causes to holocausts": The alleged "Sudra holocaust" happened in prehistorical times, 1500 BC, it is completely undocumented, it will never be possible to cite even rough casualty figures, and it really just serves a nationalist cause. One may as well speak of a "paleolithic holocaust" with relation to the Neanderthal extinction. I would really prefer that the redirect is not used. dab (ᛏ) 06:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Restoring this to a normal disambiguation page

If this is a disambiguation page, then it should not be filled with encyclopedic information; it should be a list of links with just enough information to tell them apart from each other. All of the information about them should be in the respective articles.

Mikkalai, you've removed a portion of the links, I presume because it may not be quite politically correct to refer to them as a "Holocaust". Even if that's the case, I would say that having them in the list is less harmful than fighting an edit war over it; inclusion in the list just means that someone may have linked that term for an event, and doesn't endorse the term. Again, the respective article can mention the term and its usage or appropriateness.

The current very text-heavy "stable" version is so far removed from the recommended formatting for a disambiguation page that I would prefer to compromise rather than leave it this way. —Michael Z. 2005-12-12 22:27 Z

See also MOS:DP.

I don't know why Sam Spade reverted to a "stable version", but I recommend reverting back to this version. That version follows the MoS.--Commander Keane 01:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. —Michael Z. 2005-12-14 15:47 Z

What about the witches' Holocaust!!?!?

What about the Witches's Holocaust, while we're on the subject of Holocausts? Michael 14:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• only 265 unique Google hits, all of which have to do with lyrics, primarily by a black metal group, Graveland. Denni ☯ 01:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Holokauston versus Holocaust (sacrifice)

The word "holocaust", in its earlier meaning, referred to a burnt sacrifice. Over the past months, an entry has been added and deleted from this page including this term.

The argument has centered around whether Wikipedia is a dictionary. But that's not the issue here. You can make an argument that Wikipedia should, or should not, have an entry on "holocaust" in the sense of sacrifice. But if Wikipedia does have such an entry, it needs to be included in this disambiguation list! (By way of comparison: most John Smiths are not important enough to have Wiki entries, but those which do must be on the John Smith disambiguation page.)

But currently there is a weird situation. There is a page devoted to Holocaust in the sense of sacrifice. But it is listed under the original Greek word, Holokauston. This is unacceptable. Wikipedia is an English-language encyclopedia. If you want to learn about liturgy or about tyrants, you look up Liturgy and Tyrant, not Leitourgia and Tyrannos. Therefore either holocaust in the sense of sacrifice needs to be listed under an English name, or it needs to be deleted.

My proposal is that Holokauston be renamed Holocaust (sacrifice). I'll go ahead and do this in a couple days if there are no objections. Lawrence King 01:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Lawrence King 03:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust link to Fire

Holocaust, total destruction by a major fire. This was the common usage of the word up to the 1970s. The link goes to the Fire article...I think we should either change it to a Wikitionary entry or remove the link altoghether -raylu^T 01:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well there is already a link to Wikitionary on the right, and Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary so yes, great idea, go ahead and remove that entry.--Commander Keane 01:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What happened in 1833?

Someone said the definition of holocaust as "mass destruction" comes from 1833; what happened in 1833 that was so bad? someone oughta add it in.

Nothing happened in 1833. That's just a reference to the OED which quotes a comment by a historian writing in 1833 about the medieval French monarch Louis VII, who "once made a holocaust of thirteen hundred persons in a church". This refers to his invasion of Vitry-le-François in 1142 during which the 1,300 inhabitants of the town were burnt alive in the church. In fact the OED gives the earliest usage in this sense as 1671. This page needs an overhaul. For a start it implies that the term 'nuclear holocaust' is an extension from the use to refer to Nazi murders, but in fact it's used earlier. The sequence is:

1. burned sacrifice

2. complete destruction of something by fire - whether things or people

3. a massacre

4. nuclear destruction and other large-scale bombings in WW2

5. genocidal murder in WW2

6. Any genocidal act.

I removed the following, because it's not clear what it's referring to: "Some writers who use an archaic style, such as H.P. Lovecraft, have used the word in reference to other things--in Lovecraft's case, it was an extraterrestrial antichrist called Wilbur Whateley, and his unholy father was Yog-Sothoth." Paul B 14:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Trimmed list

Pretty much any alleged genocide will be described as a holocaust by those who support such a characterisation. I have added a link to genocides in history and removed all entries listed there to avoid duplication. If that becomes an acceptable convention, then only one article, rather than two, will become the focus of contention (--oh yes it was a genocide--on no it wasn't--etc.) I left Maafa, which isn't on the genocide list, and three which have separate articles Hindu Holocaust, Prussian Holocaust, Ukrainian Holocaust, which are clearly POV terms with articles describing them as such. jnestorius^(talk) 23:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Usage and movies

This discussion page and the disambiguation page both say this has been the main meaning of the word since the 1970s. Would it be appropriate to say that that's because of the TV movie of that title? I seem to recall it was 1977. Before that, I never heard the word holocaust to refer to the genocide committed by the nazi regime. That's not to say it wasn't used before that, but I don't think it's what most people thought of when they heard the word holocaust. Usually that word connoted the effects of nuclear bombing. That meaning seems more appopriate in view of the fact that as a common noun, holocaust means complete burning of everything. Michael Hardy 17:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, but this page is just a list. The point is discussed in the article Names of the Holocaust. Paul B 21:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Book with the title The Holocaust not included?

I included a reference to a book, titled The Holocaust (ISBN: 0195045238, author: Leni Yahil, subtitle: The Fate of the European Jewry, 1932-1945, YOFP: 1987 in Israel, English version 1991 by OUP) but it was quickly taken out of the disambiguation with the reviewer remarking that "that's not other uses, just a book about the holocaust". Firstly, I take exception to the qualification as "just a book about the Holocaust" (peripheral remark: note the capitalization). Few books are as well-referenced and well-researched on that subject, yielding such an authoritative work. Secondly, the title of that book appears to be just as much a homograph as, for example, the TV series (which somehow, apparently, is deemed more worthy of inclusion). Sliding past the "just a book" reference as a mere careless slip of the fingers, I'm truly curious as to why some TV series merits inclusion, while a truly scholarly work doesn't. --Nv1962 05:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There are hundreds of books about the holocaust. There is no reason to include this one. But the main point is that this is a disambiguation page, designed to point the reader to multiple pages on subjects with similar names. The "other uses" section is for uses of the word holocaust that are not directly related to World War 2 itself or other genocides. Hence it refers to the tv series, because there is an article about it. It refers to the book called "Holocaust" because it is discussed in the Cocoanut Grove fire article. Your book is a book about The Holocaust and is therefore not an other usage. Furthermore there is no article about it, nor is it even footnoted once amid the 165 footnotes in the main Holcaust article. --Paul B 08:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Any suggestion?

Hi, I have created User:Arilang1234/Sand box/Literary Holocaust by Manchu Qianlong, before I turn it into an article, user PBS suggest I put a request here for discussion. Thanks. Also see Siku Quanshu#Siku Jinshu Arilang ^talk 21:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Christ as Holocaust

Hasn't the word Holocaust ever been used when describing the atonement ? It was certainly used in ancient Jewish ritual, but I think some writers have also used the term Holocaust when describing Jesus's sacrifice on the cross. Furthermore, the doctrine of the unique sacrifice would mean that there is only one legally valid Holocaust, which is Jesus Christ / Jesus Holocaust. The term notably appears in Catholic eucharistic doctrine when refering to the holy host in divine liturgy. ADM (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

World view, exclusion and dominance

Holocaust in Namibia does not only refer to the Jewish or Holocaust of Germany. It seems a little strange owning or even patenting a term. It is not a worldview as Holocaust has come to mean different things to different people. This is an imposition of one people's experience to the exlusion of all others. So where is the page for other people's Holocaust? Holocaust is just a word, it is a word in Greek, no Greeks died in any of the Holocaust under debate. Holocaust is not for comparison but as language changes the term has weight in describing mass Holocaust of many people. Yes it was first used for the Europe holocaust but language is not static. But European scholars do not dictate worldview. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

disambiguation Also accommodates variations on the usage of a term or concept. per wikipedia. Wikipedia:Disambiguation Why is a different law being used here? All terms using Holocaust are therefore valid, maybe we need a serperate page just for that. or are these Holocausts to minor to be included here?

"Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." It points to other articles which usde the same word. If you think there are other articles to disaminguate, add them, but putting a 'worldwide' tag on is, frankly, silly. This has nothing to do with 'european scholars' whatever. And no, it wasn't first used for 'the Europe holocaust'. Read Names of the Holocaust. Paul B (talk) 14:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

To add to what Paul said, disambiguation pages are intended to disambiguate between Wikipedia articles. In this case, the page is intended to disambiguate between Wikipedia articles called "Holocaust". These include The Holocaust, of course, along with a miniseries, cartoon character, etc. This page is not intended to be a comprehensive listing of every large-scale killing that has been likened to the Holocaust; it is merely intended to disambiguate among Wikipedia articles called "Holocaust". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Japan

I do NOT understand why the killing of 30+ million people by the Japanese is not considered and recorded as a holocaust?

[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.216.81 (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

For the reasons explained in the section above. Paul B (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 14 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

---

Holocaust (disambiguation) → holocaust – parenthesis does not seem necessary, this location was freed in 2013 by the move of the primary article to "The Holocaust" and enough other holocausts are documented now that it would be good to disambiguate between them and not make the majority of holocausts an afterthought. Ranze (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support, I remember that in the past without the "the" one was deliberately redirected to this page so as to show all uses of the term. The top of the page already links to The Holocaust, so this still guarantees easy access. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Holocaust is the clear primary topic for the term "Holocaust". Obviously. —Xezbeth (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I may be mistaken, but I believe it used to be so that "holocaust" without a capital letter linked to this page. Not sure if that is even possible though. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
    • It's not possible. Lower case tiles can only use seen if a special template is used but it would still need to be at Holocaust first be for work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.163.254 (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, with Xezbeth. There's a clear primary topic, and it's for the World War II Holocaust. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.