Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Ustashe and Muslims

"The ruling party in Croatia, the Ustashe, not only killed Jews, but murdered and expelled Orthodox Christian Serbs and Muslims." The part on Muslims in NDH is not true. They were considered Croats, "Hrvatsko cvijeće" or "the flower of the Croatian nation" and hence they were spared. (except in the case if they joined to the partisans)

Schrodinger

Why does this article say Schrodinger was a Jewish scientist when he wasn't Jewish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:69C1:2A00:2CEB:6130:893:ADEF (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Good point, Schrodinger was an opponent of the Nazis, but not Jewish. Removed. Acroterion (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

This is purely just an opinion

Currently under the Jehowa's Witness section it reads: "Historian Detlef Garbe writes that "no other religious movement resisted the pressure to conform to National Socialism with comparable unanimity and steadfastness."[449]". This is purely just an opinion, not a fact.

I agree that "writes" is ambiguous, and I have now changed it to "Historian Detlef Garbe is of the opinion that ..." to clarify that it is in fact an opinion. Jhertel (talk) 13:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Note that I was answering to an unsigned message (the first paragraph) and that there is no way on a mobile phone to change the original message to add the missing signature, as the Wikipedia website does not even comply with the mobile browser asking for the desktop version. So I cannot edit anything on the talk page, only add. This appears to be a bug in the Wikipedia system. Jhertel (talk) 13:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Holocaust (disambiguation)

An attempt to redefine the term; please comment. If the editor is right, then the lede here must be changed as well. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that different historians have different definitions. From the article: "Using the most restrictive definition of the Holocaust produces a death toll of around six million Jews, the figure cited by Adolf Eichmann, one of the Holocaust's architects. The broadest definition would raise the death toll to 17 million." --Jhertel (talk) 10:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI, we are not required to match our lede to the definition on a disambig page. VQuakr (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes we do in sensitive cases. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:CONLIMITED. Some poorly-attended edit war/discussion on a minimally viewed disambig page isn't going to override the extensive discussions we've had on the subject here. VQuakr (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary

"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"

131.111.184.102 (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

"systematically murdered some six million" in the lede

This is a very archaic way of saying "about six million" or "approximately six million". It sounds like something written in a newspaper from 50-100 years ago, and is potentially confusing to a modern reader, who could interpret it as meaning that the Nazis only killed some of the 6 million Jews who died in the holocaust. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It isn't at all archaic; it's a standard way of expressing "somewhere in the region of". Less precise than "approximately" (which has a ring of "could be six; could be 5.999"), and much better prose than "about". Why do you prefer six syllables ("approximately") to one? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Well it sounds very archaic to me, and saying "some [number]" is very uncommon in modern-day English. And it's better because its meaning is more straightforward and better understood to readers. And I completely disagree with your assertion that "some six million" is in any way "better prose". Rreagan007 (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

As I said in an edit summary, if we are using some to mean approximately, we should just say approximately, as it is more clear. I see no difference in the quality of the prose. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It's standard idiomatic English. "She speaks some twenty languages." "She speaks approximately twenty languages." I'm a little mystified. "...some six million" is good writing. Antandrus (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Here is part of the ambiguity. If someone said to me "she speaks some twenty languages", I would interpret that as just a snobby, verbose way of saying that she speaks 20 languages. I would not interpret "some" in that context to mean "about" or "approximately". Rreagan007 (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, some means of uncertain number; approximately means the number given, perhaps plus or minus a bit. That is more clear, and therefore "better" for an encyclopeida. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

It would be nice to keep the writing tight. "Systematically murdered some six million European Jews" is better writing than "systematically murdered approximately six million European Jews". SarahSV ^(talk) 20:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I see no problem with 'some', either. It is stylistically good and I see it in everyday use myself. It's a cool alternative to approximately, and it's good English. Not snobby, but a usage of 'some' which is actually correct. Irondome (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Plundering the Jewish victims

http://defendinghistory.com/the-holocaust-was-also-a-matter-of-plundering-the-jewish-victims/76758

The page doesn't inform about the economy of the Holocaust, described by Götz Aly in Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State.Xx236 (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Consider a restructuring of the first paragraph to reflect the equality of all victims in the Holocaust - particularly the Romani.

'The Holocaust, also referred to as the Shoah,[b] was a genocide during World War II in which Nazi Germany, aided by its collaborators, systematically murdered some six million European Jews, around two-thirds of the Jewish population of Europe, between 1941 and 1945.[c] Jews were targeted for extermination as part of a larger event involving the persecution and murder of other groups, including in particular the Roma and "incurably sick",[6] as well as ethnic Poles and other Slavs, Soviet citizens, Soviet prisoners of war, political opponents, gay men and Jehovah's Witnesses, resulting in up to 17 million deaths overall.'

Above, for reference, is the introductory paragraph at the time of writing (16/08/18).

SUGGESTED CHANGES:

1. Remove clause 'also referred to as the Shoah'. Possibly introduce such terms later in this paragraph, this time including 'Porajmos' and any other terms used, to offset this loss of information.

              -- The Shoah is the term used by the Jewish population to refer to the genocide perpetrated against the European Jewish population by the Nazis. The use of such term sees the exclusion of other targeted groups, for instance, the Romani Gypsy population, who saw proportional loss 'as great as that of the Jews, and quite probably greater' (Churchill 1997, p.38).

2. Consider restructuring the above paragraph to reflect the equal standing of all victims of the Holocaust.

              -- Currently, the above paragraph suggests Jews to be the primary victims of the Holocaust, with other minority groups persecution to a lesser extent. This should be reworded to reflect the equal treatment of Jews and gypsies, at least, if not also to reflect the treatment of Slavs, of whom the Nazis murdered around 19.7-23.9 million (Churchill 1997, p.48).
              -- For an alternative source of authority, see Simon Wiesenthal's quote in 'Sails of Hope'(1973): 'The Holocaust was not only a matter of the killing of six million Jews. It involved the killing of eleven million people, six million of whom were Jews.' 

3. Consider rewording the final clause: 'resulting in up to 17 million deaths overall' to illustrate that this is not the highest estimated figure.

              -- Ward Churchill (1997, p.49) estimates the cost of life to be at around 26 million. Reword the original at least to suggest that 17 million deaths  is not the upper estimate. Most simply, the phrase 'up to' can be removed to solve this issue. 

SUGGESTED RESOLUTION:

              -- A paragraph phrased thus could serve to resolve all issues mentioned above: 'The Holocaust was a genocide during World War II in which Nazi Germany, aided by its collaborators, systematically murdered some 17 million Jews, Roma, the 'incurably sick', ethnic poles and other slaves, Soviet citizens, Soviet prisoners of war, political opponents, gay men and Jehovah's Witnesses between 1941 and 1945. Affected groups adopt different terms for the Holocaust, such as Shoah (Jewish) and Porajmos (Roma).'
              -- All source references in the original can be used where required again in this suggested version. 

CHURCHILL, W., 1997. A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas 1492 to the Present. San Francisco: City Lights Books.

WIESENTHAL, S., 1973. Sails of Hope. New York: Macmillan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markparker97 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Not all sources (in fact, not even most sources) consider that the Holocaust refers to any other victims than Jewish victims. We cannot go beyond what the sources disagree about - see the body of the article. And quite frankly, Ward Churchill's a bit of a polarizing figure. Someone who's specialty is American history (especially Native American history) and has been terminated from his teaching position because of research problems is not exactly going to be a reliable source on a subject outside his field (while he's a genocide scholar, he's one that specializes in a totally different genocide). There are a LOT of Holocaust scholars who limit the Holocaust to just the Jewish victims or the Jewish victims and the Roma. And Wiesenthal's "11 million" has been the subject of some controversy ... there doesn't seem to be any actual research behind that "5 million others" number - in fact, some reports have it that he pulled that number out of thin air - picking 5 million because it was less than the Jewish total, but still close to it, in order to make a point. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

If we are unable to go beyond what the sources disagree about, is the current phrasing of the article misleading in suggesting a consensus on the issue? Perhaps an amendment of the first section to demonstrate this lack of scholarly unanimity would be suitable. The section located at the bottom of the article is a start towards highlighting this, but is this sufficient to highlight a debate of great controversy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markparker97 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

We have been here before and while I don’t like to repeat myself, I wrote on the talk page back in March 2015: "The Nazis (and their allies) committed mass murder of different groups of people: Russian POWs, Ukrainians, Roma, and Serbs. I believe that these other mass murders are well covered in other WP articles. The fact is that the major historians writing in English have chosen to use the term, Holocaust, to refer only to the mass murder of European Jews by the Nazis and their allies. This is a question of taxonomy, not judgement.

"While it is not possible to count the heads of historians, (re:'scholar unamity'), I suggest the following list: Saul Friedlander, Peter Longerich, Michael Marrus, Robert Paxton, Christopher Browning, Deborah Lipstadt, Leni Yahil, Walter Laqueur, Arthur D. Morse, Nora Levin, Susan Zuccotti, Alexander Donat, David S. Wyman, Martin Gilbert, Yehuda Bauer, Timothy Snyder, Tony Judt, Caroline Moorehead, Ian Kershaw, and Raul Hilberg. By anybody's measure, an honor roll of the major historians of modern European history. Everyone of them uses the term "The Holocaust" to distinguish the Nazi mass murder of European Jews from other Nazi mass murders. The publication dates of these studies range from 1967 (Arthur Morse) to 2013 (Susan Zuccotti)." Joel Mc (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for the replies Ealdgyth and Joel. We can consider this topic closed for now. If any further evidence is found to refute your claim, Joel, I'll reopen the thread. Thanks.Markparker97 (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

That this is even up for discussion leaves one breathless with amazement. The purpose of the Holocaust was to murder all the Jews in Europe, period. Referring to the Holocaust as "the Shoah" is absolutely correct and we don't need a separate ethnic/linguistic term for each of the other groups that might have been affected. The term Shoah does not and was never intended to exclude non-Jews who were also murdered. Tpkatsa (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2018

people will die because other are still here

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dolotta (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Source request

Hi Catrìona, you added a short ref in July (diff) that doesn't correspond to a long ref. Can you please add the long citation to Works cited? SarahSV ^(talk) 04:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. [1] SarahSV ^(talk) 04:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Minutiae

Hi,
just a few reflections, hopefully in a form that will allow meaningful discussion of amendment.

Definition (Proposal for discussion)

Schematically (for want of a better word), the Holocaust is one "Species" of one larger "Genus" (which the article lede calls "part of a larger event involving the persecution and murder of other groups "), with the genocide of Romani people and the killing and persecution of further groups of "undesireables" as other "Species". IMO, both the definition and the uniqueness question suffer from the problem that they want to treat the Holocaust both as a separate "Species" and at the same time the larger "Genus" box.
I'm hesitant to make proposals, and even more to present them as a solution, but feel it's bad form to merely critique and not to stick my own neck out ... so in that spirit, here goes:
If I were King of Wikipedia, I'd perhaps make an article called "Nazi Crimes against Humanity" or "Nazi Genocidal programs" or even "Nazi Genocidal State Programs" as a super-category, and then list the various sub-categories separately.
This would have the benefit of accommodating all such crimes in the same class, so to speak, while retaining the uniqueness of the various instances of such crimes.

Medical experiments (factoid)
I see that there is disussion on various sub-pages on the value of the Nazi experiments.
AFAIK Siegfried Ruff was consulted on divers' safety during the North Sea Oil Boom, and some of the diving tables were calculated using data from the "Seenot" program, namely the human cooling rate in sea water. There was simply no ethical way to acquire such data, so data acquired unethically were used. (This is not to say that even these data were sound, just that they were in fact used.)
Ruff's activities were chronicled by Kogon, back in the day. For further sources, search for "Institut für Flugmedisin" + Dachau.

Origins (factoid)
Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Paul de Lagarde are mentioned. Since Hitler owned a stack of books by Hans Günther, I'd propose that he also merits mention here. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_F._K._Günther)

Other occupied countries (fact)
The fate of Norway's Jews does not, unfortunately, include only being registered and having their property stolen. More than 700 were deported to the Continent and killed. This is properly narrated in the linked sub-articles, but not in this article.

Motivation (language)
AFAICS - e.g. by looking at the linked sub-articles - this heading is something of a misnomer: It doesn't deal with anyone's motivation, but discusses the issue or responsibility. For all I know, this section is the best place to discuss responsibility, but then it should be labelled as such, IMO.

Uniqueness question (My two cents; one is OR, the other SYNTH)
The described disagreements appear to arise from the ambiguity of the term "unique"; one word turned into two strawmen, so to speak.
Like all historical events the Holocaust is unique as a particular event, with features particular it, clearly making it _that_ event, and making it recognizable as that event.
If I were to claim it as objectively more tragic than any other category, I'd probably mak a category error, since "tragic" is a rather more subjective category; here we are limited by our imagination, our capacity for compassion, by the closeness to ourselves of any tragedy.
I don't really know how to conclude this section ... except perhaps to appeal for more linguistic clarity. Cop out, I know.
T88.89.217.49 (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Aktion T4 deaths

On the Aktion T4 page <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4<ref> the number of euthanized handicapped people is cited as 275,000- 300,000. The number on this page is much lower. Could someone please update the number on this page with the newer citations from the Aktion T4 page so the numbers are consistent? I apologize if this request was not submitted properly.Loosey Furr (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

The Holocaust by bullets

• https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/world/europe/a-light-on-a-vast-toll-of-jews-killed-away-from-the-death-camps.html?module=inline
• http://www.memorialdelashoah.org/upload/minisites/ukraine/en/en_exposition1.htm Xx236 (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

GAN

Catrìona, GAN says: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination." The article isn't ready for any kind of review, in my opinion. Some of it is okay; several sections need to be checked. The big problem is that we don't know what it's about: the mainstream definition of the Holocaust or any of the broader ones? Why did you nominate it? SarahSV ^(talk) 06:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

it isn’t ready in my eyes either, and if the nominator doesn’t have most of the sources available..it’s putting an undue burden on those of us that do. At the least, it should have been brought up on the talk page. I do not have the time to devote to shepherding this article through GAN, that’s for sure. Ealdgyth - Talk 06:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

How do you know what sources I have or don't have? Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions is not a policy or guideline, just a help page. I nominated it because the objections to the last nomination seemed to have been resolved and it seemed more or less in line with the GA criteria. But, if there is opposition, I will just go edit some other page where there aren't editors accusing me of things. Catrìona (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Catrìona, the Instructions page is just that: instructions, not merely advice. The instruction to ask at the article talk page is there for a reason, and that reason has been demonstrated here: the regular contributors will likely know whether the article is ready to survive a GAN and what areas still need significant work if it does not. I didn't see any accusations, just the typical questions and issues that are to be expected when this situation occurs. I don't know why you expected anything else. Thank you for withdrawing your nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)