Talk:Holocaust analogy in animal rights/Archive 1

Archive 1

Why is this here?

Why is there a separate article for this? It's not "notable." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.246.232.41 (talk) 07:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this page is offensive to Holocaust survivors 45.44.224.14 (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

See here what some Holocaust survivors think of this topic. Jan Vlug (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

No-one has the right not to be offended. Wikipedia is not censored WP:CENSORED. And the topic is notable because it has been discussed and commented on by a wide variety of people on both sides with reliable sourced information to back up the discussion / issue. Robynthehode (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Difficulty of maintaining neutrality

I daresay that the difficulty of maintaining neutrality about the Holocaust on your Plate campaign has not been lessened by the (agreed-upon) creation of this spin-off page. In order to keep it from becoming a Wikipedia:POV fork, we need to keep working hard to ensure that our own pro- or anti-PETA biases do not leak into our writing.

One issue that comes to mind is whether comparing prisoners to pigs:

• elevates animals to the moral level of people (as PETA no doubt intended it); or,
• reduces people to moral level of animals (as ADF certainly took it)

Immediately I'll be accused of bias for even bringing this up, and that's okay. Even though Wikipedia is not a blog, if anyone's interested in my views you are welcome to ask me. As a member of the Unification Church, I believe in the doctrine of Three Great Blessings (sorry, I've never gotten around to writing that article; just lazy, I guess). Sneak preview: Before Father Moon became a reverend, he was an avid observer of nature and:

• One day after he had prayed, it seemed as if the trees, bushes and grass began to speak: "Nobody takes care of us. We feel abandoned by mankind" Realizing that nature cried out to be loved, he felt like embracing the entire world, vowing, "I will be your caretaker." [1]

Sorry if this is off-topic. Just thought I'd say something nice. --Uncle Ed 14:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Timing of PETA apology

The current edit reads:

Stuart Bender, legal counsel for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, wrote to PETA asking them to "cease and desist this reprehensible misuse of Holocaust materials."

Ingrid Newkirk apologized for the pain it had caused, writing...

The first of these incidents occured more than 2 years before the second. I believe that mentioning them consecutively implies that the apology was made soon afterwards, and is therefore deceptive.

The following edit of mine was reverted:

Over 2 years after the campaign began, Ingrid Newkirk apologized for the pain it had caused. On May 5 2005 she wrote:

The other editor considered clarifying the timing to be "editorializing and considering her apology late".

I do not indend to revert or debate the point, so I am leaving this note for the consideration of future editors. -81.79.242.103 01:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a clear timeline is needed. If there are sources showing exactly when Newkirk first found out about the unexpected (by her) negative reaction, then the legal threat(s), and how she handled the situation from the beginning, then it would make sense to present the events objectively. What we should not do is pick items selectively. For example, if there was a lot of 'behind the scenes' activity, with Newkirk first learning about the negative reaction, then trying to explain that the campaign was promoted and supported by Jewish PETA members as well as Israeli papers (as she explains here) and this was an ongoing process, then it would be wrong to just mention the start and finish points of the process. Presenting just the start and finish could imply that no related activity was going on in the meanwhile. Crum375 01:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add the date along with more context from her article, hopefully this will address some of the concerns. Crum375 02:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The writings of Edgar Kupfer-Koberwitz

Hello. I have put in a "Further reading" section a link to the text Animals, My Bretheren, from by Edgar Kupfer-Koberwitz, a man that was in Dachau concentration camp since 1940. I had put it because I think it would be interesting to the article and maybe could permit put some quotes of a men that lived the holocaust and the connection he saw with animal rights. I don't make these changes in this way at the article cause my english level is low. Greentings. Akhran (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

SICK

Any comparison between animals and the victims of the holocaust is f**king sick. Perhaps you should extent the theory and treat and punish all people who have ever poured hot water over an ants nest as Hitler. Hmmm - not so similar really are they. Sick bastards -the lot of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.40.96 (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beganlocal (talk • contribs) 18:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Category

Another editor disagrees with me about including this page in the category Antisemitism. Rather than getting into an edit war, I want to explain the issue as I see it here. First, I want to make sure that we do not have a misunderstanding: including the page in the category in no way means that the subjects of the page necessarily are antisemitic. The purpose is not derogatory. That said, the purpose of a category is to help readers and editors interested in a subject to find pages that are of interest to people following the subject. This page discusses antisemitism extensively. It is not simply a passing mention, but a central theme of both the lead and the main text. Naturally, then, readers who want to find material discussing antisemitism may very likely want to find this page. Thus, the category. I'm sympathetic to how the subject matter is sensitive for many people, but there is no need to take offense at including the category. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Imagine an article about a prominent person, who at one point in his career is accused of pedophilia. Does his biography article immediately become categorized under pedophilia? What about someone being accused of racism, should his biography be categorized under racism? I would think not. In general, a category should be added to an article when there is no reasonable doubt and a general consensus as to the article belonging to that category. Once there is doubt, or controversy, or dispute, the mere fact of adding the category automatically violates WP:NPOV and possibly WP:UNDUE, because it is effectively the Wikipedia editors taking a side in the dispute. In this specific case, there is no universal consensus that Animal Rights and Holocaust comparisons are antisemitic or have to do with antisemitism, despite the claims of some people. For Wikipedia editors to slap on the antisemitism category would be to take one side in that dispute. Crum375 (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I fear that we are talking past one another. As I said above, in no way does this category indicate that the subjects of the page are antisemitic. It indicates that the page discusses, substantively, antisemitism. You say "despite the claims of some people." Those claims, and their rebuttals, are examined in depth in the article. The fact that the page examines these claims does not mean that editors have taken a side on them, only that they are included for, indeed, NPOV. Take a look at the category in question. It includes Jewish martyrs. Does that mean that Jewish martyrs are antisemitic? Of course not. It means that readers looking for material exploring antisemitism might want to read pages about Jewish martyrs. Given the content of this page, they might want to read this one too. It's unfortunate that some editors misunderstand categories as some kind of value judgment applied to the subjects of a page. WP:Categorization says (in its nutshell summary): "Categories help users navigate through Wikipedia via multiple taxonomies. Categories are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions." See? Categories exist to help navigate through the Wiki. Yes, the categories should be neutral, and this one is. If it were something like "category:antisemites", then I would agree with you that it would violate NPOV to classify this page as being about persons who are antisemites. But this is a category of pages that explore various aspects of the issue of antisemitism, as this page undeniably does. The phrase "defining characteristics" means defining characteristics of the subject matter, not characteristics that define each person mentioned in a page. You may wish to consider whether resistance to using the category is, in fact, taking sides. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

My point is simple, and your last sentence actually indirectly confirms it. If adding a category is merely a 'convenience to readers', then adding or not adding it would not be 'taking sides', yet you imply that not adding this cat could be taking sides. And that's exactly my point: adding a category to an article is akin to slapping a label on it, and making a statement by the Wikipedia editors. The only way to remain neutral would be to only add a cat when it is consensual, i.e. all sides in a dispute agree to that label. But once one side disagrees, adding a label which supports one side violates NPOV, since there is no 'anti category' to counter-balance it. Crum375 (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your point is simply mistaken, and you misconstrued my last sentence. I did not say that "not adding this cat could be taking sides." I said that taking a position of resistance to adding it could be taking sides. There's a difference: I was commenting on a position of argument in this talk, not the actual effect of making the edit, the consequence of the edit in the real world. You argue that the actual effect of making the edit would be to take sides, but I think your perception is inaccurate. In other words, as you say very clearly, you perceive the addition of the category as "akin to slapping a label on it", whereas I do not, and my reading of policy on categorization seems to me to support what I am saying. Placing the page in this category does not imply that animal rights people are antisemites. It indicates that issues of antisemitism are among the defining characteristics of the ideas that are debated within the issues of animal rights and the Holocaust. And the page clearly says that this is the case. The issue is prominently featured in the lead, and close to half of the main text discusses it (but without "taking the side" that the claims of antisemitism are either correct or incorrect). You asked earlier whether I would support adding categories such as pedophilia or racism to biography pages. First, this is not a biography page, but rather a page about controversial ideas. Second, my answer would depend on the specifics. If a page were a biography of a person who was passingly and wrongly, maybe even maliciously, accused of something, and the accusation was only a minor, incidental component of the page, then no, of course, I would not advocate using such a category. It would simply not be a useful direction to navigation. On the other hand, if the accusation became a prominent, central feature of the person's life (even if the accusation were eventually disproven), then the category might be applicable. I would look at the page to see how large a part of the page the issue comprised. If the accusation occupied about half of the text and was featured prominently in the lead, then, yes, the category would be appropriate, even if the accusation were incorrect. And that is the situation here. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for additional opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is specifically a Judaism issue, since the larger issue is categorization in general. As I see it, if I slap Category:Criminals on a BLP article, I am effectively labeling that person as a criminal. Which would be fine if he has been convicted in a court of law, and his criminality is relevant to his notability per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_people#Categories, but obviously not otherwise. In the case of an organization or movement, such as animal rights, it is a similar situation. If the group self-identifies with a label, then it can generally be used. But if it denies and objects to that label, then by slapping it on, Wikipedia is taking a position in the dispute, by forcing the article to be classified under that label, similar to the "criminal" category for a person. The point is that categories are black-and-white statements, and do not allow room for explanation, for example that one side believes that the person is a criminal, and the other disputes it. So we can only include the category when it's unambiguous and undisputed, or else we violate NPOV by painting the article with a one-sided label and taking a specific position in a dispute. Crum375 (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I figure that, at this point, you and I just sincerely disagree about it being a "label" like that, and there will be little to gain by continuing to disagree. I do agree with you, in part, that the issue is not purely a Judaism issue, but it seems to me to be a reasonable and practical way to get some fresh eyes on the issue, from editors who pay attention to this subject matter, so let's see what happens. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking again at the antisemitism category, I notice this text in a big box at the top of the category page: "This category contains articles that discuss or refer to the topic of antisemitism. It does not imply that the subjects of any articles in the category are antisemitic." My point exactly. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have created a new category Category:Comparisons to Nazism and the Holocaust. It includes this article, Reductio ad Hitlerum, Silent Holocaust, Is the Holocaust Unique? (book), Mass media coverage of Alan Grayson's comments on the Republican's health care plan, Godwin's law, The Soup Nazi. I think that this is a accurate a useful category which we can all agree on. Jon513 (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that one seems reasonable. Crum375 (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a partially helpful step, and I thank you for doing it. However, it really does not add much, for this particular page, to the already-used category of Holocaust studies, although, arguably, it is more appropriate than Holocaust studies, which could now be deleted here (ie, this page is not really about studies). However, it's a far cry from the Soup Nazi, and is not really responsive to the point I raised. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC) P.S.: I see the studies category has now been deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

But I do think Jon513 is on to the right approach: finding/creating a category that works. Maybe something like Category:Controversies about antisemitism? Or Category:Claims of antisemitism? Or some other wording along those lines? Partly, this is a question of a category name that is agreeable, and partly a question of what other pages exist that would belong in the category. Ideas? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What about Category:Meat industry comparisons to human genocides? Crum375 (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added Category:Jews and Judaism-related controversies. That satisfies the concerns that I raised, and I hope that it is unobjectionable to other editors. If it is acceptable, then I consider the issue to be resolved. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Trying to avoid edit war

Editor Crum375 has reverted me at least four times in the past few hours, in addition to repeatedly commenting out text I have written. I can appreciate that the material of this page is controversial, so I want to start talk here, rather than report to 3RR. The edit summary of the most recent reversion was "Removing that part conveys a false impression, and 'imprisoned' is incorrect -- in many, perhaps most, cases they were just taken from their homes to their deaths." Frankly, I don't understand it. It really just sounds like reverting for the sake of reverting. About the text that I moved down (did not remove from the page, just moved down from the lead), what exactly is the false impression? Both sets of quotes speak to the two-sidedness of the issue as the author sees it. I just think it got too verbose to have both sets of quotes together in the lead. The "since written" formulation also appears to imply that the second quote was a partial retraction of the first, but this does not seem to be the case. About "imprisoned", can you suggest an alternative word? As I pointed out in an earlier edit summary, leaving the sentence as is creates what is a false impression: that Jewish writers were criticizing most other Jews. Please take a deep breath, and explain. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I only now noticed your 'edit warring' posts. I don't think we were edit warring at all. What we were doing, and I think fairly successfully, is trying to reach a reasonable compromise which expresses both sides in this debate. I think the current version, which is a result of both our efforts, is not bad. I don't think there was a 3RR violation on either side because we were working on different sub-issues and gradually converging on more neutral version. Crum375 (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Going forward, that sounds good. Please let me suggest that, when you disagree, you try to find a compromise edit instead of simply reverting. You will see that that is what I have been trying to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I always try to find a compromise, if I can see one. But if you add 'captured' or 'imprisoned' which doesn't make sense at all, it needs to go out, not 'half way' out. In other situations there is a possible middle ground, and it makes sense to strive for it. I will not analyze your behavior here, as I prefer to focus on the message, not the messenger. I respectfully suggest you do the same, and try to get the article into optimal shape without dwelling on editors' personalities or motivations. Crum375 (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, this material is such that people naturally feel strongly, and you and I have consistently seen things differently, but I'm disappointed by that answer. From where I sit, this has continuously been a process where I make a good-faith edit, you revert it on the grounds that it needs to "go out" entirely; then I try to find an alternative that takes both your and my concerns into account, and then you again revert it entirely, and so on and on. In every case, it is I who comes to talk first. It is I who first added the pro-AR material to the lead. The history of edits will show all of that to be true. You needlessly engage in framing here by saying that I dwell on your personality and motivations; that is untrue, unfair, and unsubstantiated. (The only comment about motivations came from you, when you described me in an edit summary as "editorializing.") If you believe that something I suggest makes no sense at all, please AGF and respond by communicating and trying to find a solution other than just unilaterally vetoing everything

I take it that you are still dissatisfied with "captured". Thank you for not reverting it. I would ask you to understand that, to many readers, the sentence as you propose it, without a qualifying word, seems to imply that some Jewish writers accused their fellow Jews of being, passively, at fault for their own deaths, as opposed to the Nazis being at fault (what some Jewish thinkers would characterize as blaming the victim). (Please understand, I'm not speculating that you believe that, only describing the effect of the edit on the contents of the page.) Even if there were some writers who actually did use the animal-Holocaust comparison in that way, there were other writers who do not fit into that description, and the sentence requires some sort of modification to be accurate about that. You objected to my suggestion of "some" Jews, on the grounds that, numerically, a majority was exterminated, and I agreed with you. You then objected to my next suggestion of "imprisoned" on the grounds that, often, the victims went straight to their deaths without passing through imprisonment; this strikes me as hair-splitting, but I agreed anyway. I then suggested "captured", which you say "doesn't make sense at all". Why does it not make sense? Were they not captured? Certainly, they did not decide on their own to go voluntarily to the death camps! I've been trying to understand your point, and the most I can come up with is that maybe, in addition to having been "herded like sheep" (paraphrase of the quote), there was also the position taken by some writers that there should have been a more aggressive resistance movement before the Nazis even achieved control. Is that it? I sincerely think that "captured", as the page reads now, is fine, but I'm happy to discuss further alternatives. One approach that I can suggest is to change the current "the lack of resistance by captured European Jews, who were led to their death during the Holocaust, as 'sheep to slaughter.'" to "the lack of resistance by European Jewish victims of the Holocaust, who were led to their deaths as 'sheep to slaughter.'" Keeping in mind that my point is to not appear to blame the victims, would that version work better for you? It would be fine with me.

I think that you may also have continued questions about how to describe the second set of quotes from Roberta Kalechofsky, how to deal with "She has also written later that...". I objected to "She has since written that..." on the grounds that it implied, misleadingly, that, after her earlier quote, she had partially disowned or retracted it in favor of partially agreeing with Isaac Singer. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that seems not to be supported by the facts. I think that "also" in place of "since" allows her own words to speak for themselves, but in an attempt to defer to your wishes, I added "later". I think that's fair and neutral.

--Tryptofish (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Postcript: I followed the link to the source you cited for the second set of Kalechofsky quotes [2]. It's the same booklet, not a second one written later. It is an error to characterize it as something written later, isn't it? There is nothing at the linked site to indicate any alteration over time of the author's views on the issue, that I can see. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on that, I suggest that references 7 and 8 be combined into a single footnote, and that we change "She has also written later that she "agree[s] with I.B. Singer's statement, that 'every day is Treblinka for the animals'," but adds that "some agonies are too total to be compared with other agonies." to "She has also written that she "agree[s] with I.B. Singer's statement, that 'every day is Treblinka for the animals'," but concludes that "some agonies are too total to be compared with other agonies." That's what the source actually says. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the above, I have waited about six days, and have observed that the other editor has made more than two dozen edits to other pages over these days, and therefore I conclude that there has been an opportunity to have seen my comments above. With no objections here, and also because I continue to be concerned that the last sentence of the lead presents the stated views of a living person (R. Kalechofsky) misleadingly, I am now going to make edits as indicated above. If there are concerns about these edits, fine, but I request that others show me the same consideration that I have shown: please discuss the concerns here, instead of reverting. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Animal rights and the Holocaust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090904163302/http://www.micahbooks.com:80/animalsufferingandtheholocaust40.html to http://www.micahbooks.com/animalsufferingandtheholocaust40.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060617200423/http://web.israelinsider.com:80/views/5475.htm to http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/5475.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Sztybel

Sztybel 2006 addresses the legitimacy of the comparison in minute detail, and has been cited 34 times (more than most sources here). I think it would be well worth including, if anyone wants to take a shot at it. MacDonald 2006 has been cited much less, but sometimes in conjunction, as by Gjerris, as a counterpoint. FourViolas (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)