Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 11

message: If they are so confident about the holocaust, why is it illegal to deny it? In European countries, you face jail for simply denying the holocaust? That is dictatorial and un-democratic to the fullest. If you take time to do extensive reasearch in University Libraries as I have, and go through old newspapers, you will realise Zionist lobbyists passed the laws through for the banning of holocaust denial and Mein Kampf.
There are clear reasons for this happening which is often denied by professors and educated ones. Recently an English journalist was jailed for 3 years in Austria simply for denying the holocaust. The best way to find some answers is to read Mein Kampf which justifies to an extent anti-semitism, but never called for the death of the jews. By the way Mein Kampf is banned aswell. It seems the history regarding this matter has been locked by higher authorities in fear of some truth leaking out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.179.95.29 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) 
I didn't find anything about what was the cause...
:I was just thinking that as I was reading the article.  In college I took a class on the Holocaust, and over half of the semester was spent discussing the many causes of WWII, and, specifically, the Holocaust.  I came to the talk page to suggest a causes section, but find someone else has already pointed out its absence.  I may add a causes section later, but there are some problems with that.  The article is already quite long, too long I think, and a lengthy discussion of the causes would not help it any.  Moreover, I think there is a lot of stuff in the article that could be added, removed, or changed, to make this a much better article and that including a causes section is only one part of the massive amount of work that I see this article needing.  Finally, to be quite frank and honest, it's a depressing subject and I'm not sure I want to put enough thought and effort into something so depressing as to really do a good job at it at this time in my life.  However, this article is really not complete at all without SOME discussion of the causes. ONUnicorn 16:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So why is this article protected? Or is it? 69.109.180.114 00:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Now I see above it is "currently disabled". 69.109.187.228 16:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why

message: About 100,000 communists were killed. There had been earlier attempts at sterilizing them using X-rays.
Please give a reliable source for this statement and an explanation, a) when, b) where, c) who exactly was killed d) by whom, e) where the sterilizing took place etc. To whom is the figure related to: prosecution of German communists before the war? Mass killing of soviet partisans, prisoners of war supposed to be communists after 1939? In both cases the figure seems wrong to me. Jesusfreund 18:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but this entire discussion is getting rather off topic.  Can we steer this back to discussing the Holocaust?  Kasreyn 06:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Communist victims

message: til recently, Germany refused to allow access to massive Holocaust-related archives located in Bad Arolsen due to, among other factors, privacy concerns. However, in May 2006 a 20-year effort by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum led to the announcement that 30-50 million pages would be made....   It is currently April 26th 2006? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.33.88.54 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) 
:Good point.  Can someone look up this date and fix it? Danahuff 23:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date? 

message: I am aware of the timeframe it occured in, and that it was carried out by the Nazis, but the Holocaust, as I understand it, is not otherwise related to World War 2. For example, would the Pentagon causualties in the 9/11 attacks be considered part of the WTC bombing casualties? Of course not! So I doubt wether it should be part of the world war 2 series.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.144.157.70 (talk • contribs) .
:I would disagree.  The Holocaust is often one of the first things that comes to mind when one thinks of WWII.  I would also argue that though the causes of the war were complex and not solely related to the atrocities of the Holocaust, it is surely a major part of the war.  I think it needs to remain a part of the WWII series. Danahuff 23:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree as well. The Holocaust is absolutely integral to WWII. The removal/elimination of the Jews was a central component of Hitler's war aims. Blastfromthepast 05:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Most of the victims of the Holocaust lived in areas that came under German control because of the war, and the Holocaust was ended by Germany's defeat in the war, so they can hardly be considered separately. JanSöderback 19:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes and no. No one claims that the attack on Pentagon was a part of the attack on WTC, rather that it was one out of several parts of the 9/11 attack. On the other hand, one could imagine the slave labour camps (like Dachenau etc) being used however they were used during the war even without the WW2. Knutars 17:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World war two....? 

message: Looks like this is a rather infectious disease, attacking mainly Serbian populace whose immune system has been down due to the long exposure to Greater Serbian intense radiation causing, among other things, malignant mental disturbances. Keywords: ustaše, Jasenovac concentration camp, Ante Pavelić,...Possible antidote(s): Vladimir Žerjavić, long solitary walks in the clear air..Mir Harven 16:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Croatophobia]]

message: I you have read the book NIGHT you have seen how the Jews were treated then and there. Well Hitler was a very cruel man and did not know anything about the Jews, he just wanted them dead. And he got his wish by having the Nazis work them to death. But, thankfully, some had survive and very few still live today. I wish I could meet Elie Wiesel. I liked the book he wrote. It's very heart warming. Thanks Elie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.253.231.203 (talk • contribs) 2 May 2006  (UTC)
: Please restrict your comments at Talk pages to discussing the content of the article and see WP:NOT. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens ну? 07:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Night 

message: I saw this image at army.mil, and it therefor is in the public domain, so I uploaded it to wikipedia.  I'm sure someone who is more of an expert on the various articles relating to the holocaust can find a use for it.  Cornell Rockey 14:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:Dora Mittelbau Mass grave.jpg]] 

message: My memory says that Endlösung was the German term for what has become known as the Holocaust. Therefore, AFAIK the Holocaust was the effectuation of the ideas presentaed as Endlösung. Shouldn't we merge the two articles and describe this more accurately? Nomen Nescio 12:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Nomen, please read the definitions at the beginning of both articles. Their topics are quite different. Regards, gidonb 12:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: The term "the Holocaust" is not truly an accurate term. There were hundreds of holocausts in history, the term the 'last Holocaust' is a more accurate description of the "the holocaust", or a better term would be the Nazi holocaust.  The Holocaust implies that there  was only one holocaust in history. This is not accurate. The word holocaust comes from the latin word holocaustum (spelling is not correct), to holocaust (reference ommitted). This is a very old term. It is extremely important to be aware that several holocausts exist in history, the nazi holocaust was not original, it was only the largest scale. Another 20th century holocaust occured in Turkey in the 1910's. 
*That's why the article is called "The Holocaust" rather than "Holocaust". "The Holocaust" is generally used to refer to the Nazi Holocaust, as opposed to the other disasters. It might be unfair to the memory of (say) the Armenian genocide, but it is the way the word is used; hence, it's the title of the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Many Holocausts in History

message: I agree that this article has become to long, but just added to the problem in the Obedience section by sighting references to the "experiments" conducted by Jane_Elliott and Ron Jones (The_Third_Wave).
The psychological reasons or explanations for the blind obedience to such horrific actions could be a section all to itself, and could be eliminated as a link to Mob_psychology if the Mob_psychology stub were expanded by some experts (which I am not).
I added the Jane Elliott and Third Wave experiments to the Obedience section because both experiments are relatively recent, try to answer the perplexing obedience question, and when I saw these experiments as films they sent a chill down my spine.
ALSO...
As Roydosan points out, there are many Holocausts in history. This article should probably be re-titled. I have difficulty however with "The Nazi Holocaust" or some other name. This is difficult because if you call it the "Nazi" or "Arian Holocaust"  then you emphasize the people responsible for the Holocaust in the title. If you call it "The Jewish Holocaust" then you exclude the other victims.
: the article has proper title THE Holocaust. Please, sign your contribution. -- tasc talkdeeds 07:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article too long, (but I am a hypocrite) 

message: There should be NO controversy whatsoever that the killing and torture of millions of innocent people was PURE EVIL. The Holocaust HAS to be one of, if not THE worst, events conducted in the history of man. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.43.73.73 (talk • contribs) 30 May 2006  (UTC)
*That comment is POV. Read the guidelines before posting please. Knutars 18:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PURE EVIL

message: Minor change, but "endemic" means the exact opposite of its usage on the caption for the picture of the child dying in the street (ie. specific to a particular group, or as in a species existing in one region and nowhere else in the world).  Meant to explain that in the edit, but accidentally hit Enter too soon. MoriyaMug 20:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endemic vs. epidemic 

message: Since the article provides almost no religious interpretation of the Holocaust, I will try to make one, that is, to share my opinion. It is a well-known notion in the (Christian) Bible that the love of God towards his people invokes Satan's hatred, a fact well proved in the Holocaust, as well as in numerous other events in the history of the Jewish people. A history which for some 2600 years was practically a list of killings and persecutions. Well, the question why does God allow such terrible things to happen remains, and there can be many correct answers to it, I have a dozen but maybe not the best ones. I also want to say that the New Testament contains some predictions about the fate of the Jews and their time of exile among other nations, which were made by Jesus Himself. Jesus also made an appeal to the Jews, in certain times which they will know, to abandon Jerusalem and run for their lives. These warnings are believed to refer to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD, certainly they also refer to the time of the Holocaust, except that it wasn't to run FROM, but TO Jerusalem (this is my interpretation!). The words of Jesus (why did He cry when He entered Jerusalem?) also foretell another mass persecution of the Jews, which is still to come and will actually be bigger than the WW 2 Holocaust, by no-one else but by the Antichrist. 
Surely I'm not saying anything new. Still, I guess this part would be rejected by the Judaism, I heard it from Protestant theologians. Actually, I am Bulgarian, an Orthodox Christian, but don't know what is the view of the Orthodox Church on the matter. 
As for the question how could one nation, in our case the German nation, carry out such atrocities, I think that this act could have happened anywhere in the world. The German people, who are probably abhorred of the word "Holocaust" and avoid even reading this article, were just an instrument, you see, it wasn't only them, it was everybody, all gentiles and all nations against the Jews. Some participated actively, some turned a blind eye... Paradoxally, after WW 2, the Arabs and the Muslims, who for 1500 years were so tolerant toward the Jews, turned against them and became their most "vicious" enemies. A circle of hatred which will never stop... Or God knows, may be it can stop for a while? We saw during the 90-es in Yugoslavia, that former victims (the Serbs, but here I don't underestimate the cruelties of the Croats, Bosniaks, Albanians) were easily seduced by the hatred and created the fertile soil needed for the worst war crimes in Europe after WW2 to happen. Let's hope that the lessons of the Holocaust will be rightly learned by the Israelis themselves, and they will never become mass killers of Palestinians, no matter what the cause is!
This stuff here is truly disingenous, closing with this notion of Israelis as a group as mass murderers. As usual there appears to be this expectation of a standard applied to Israel that is higher than to any other nation in the world. We don't presume that isolated incidents of massacres by Americans define all Americans, but there is a tendency to damn Israel in the face of the situation vis a vis the Palestinians. Israel is not perfect, and Israelis themselves in past and in the present, writers and leaders have stated that the occupied territories could be and are a detriment to Israel.Finding a religious context to the Holocaust is like trying to define God. It is beyond comprehension in that context. The holocaust is understandable from a historical context and is the result of thousands of years of both anti-semitism, and the human tendency to identify in groups. One doesn't need to go very far to see how this is still expressed when insurgents in Iraq stop a bus of students and kill all those of one Muslim sect - all the Shi'ites. It is no different than the Serbs slaughtering Bosnians, or vice versa. It always stems from fanaticism. Unfortunately, religion has long been the fomenter of fanaticism - not only religions of God, but also religions of nationalism, and ethnocentric attitudes (my group better than all the rest). The same sort of fanaticism that enables a Taliban murderer to decapitate a school teacher in front of his family because he was enabling education of girls. All leaders in the world - including religious leaders must disavow themselves of these evil fanatics. You want to find Satan.. that is where you will find it.. and it is in people.. not in space or hell or anywhere else,, it is in human nature.. the elements of that "beast"...  And in our mental capabilities, it is where humans must struggle between nature and the abilities of the human mind and spirit.. 
85.11.148.77 21:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religious Meaning of the Holocaust 

message: I'm not confident enough to do this myself, but could someone add near the start of the "Death Toll" section an estimate of the total number killed? Or is such a number not possible for some reason? Mrjeff 12:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total count 

message: It is highly unlikely that half a million or even 1.2 million Serbs was killed esspecialy all of them by Croat Nazi as is written in the article. This needs immediate attention. I am from Serbia, so I know a lot of stories about this, there were Serbs killed in Croatia but this figure is too much. What about all the soldiers and civilans that died in germand bombings and in fighting? I lack exact numbers but will try to find it and change it (if i can get good source)
Genius82
Revised back to 300,000. Sorry, but all other references in the entire article suggest the minimum number of 330,000, even by Croatian estimates. All other numbers are nothing more than revisionism and cannot be tolerated. Please cite a source for the 100,000 that does not start with David Irving or some neo-Nazi organization... Please refer to Yad Vashem, Holocaust Memorial Museum or even Britannica. Please discuss prior to revising DOWNWARD numbers of Holocaust victims...  User:Xanthippus
*Sure. I reverted purely on principle; when anonymous editors change data without comment, generally it is vandalism. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very WRONG Serbs killed

message: Found that article in a bad shape. IMHO, it should be expanded (I'd prefer that option) or merged. What do you folks think? For now I called it a stub. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[History of the Jews during World War II]]

message: I'm fairly new to the tumults of this debate, so I'd like to ask for assistance.  An editor going by Overthrow has claimed, on the article Prussian Blue (duo), that this source fails to disprove the group Prussian Blue's claims, cited in the article, regarding the chemical Prussian Blue in gas chambers.  (Specifically, the group claims that there was insufficient Prussian Blue (the chemical, not white nationalist bubblegum pop) present in the gas chambers for them to have been used for their widely accepted purpose.)  I am of the opinion that the document at Holocaust-History.org, which I understand to be a scholarly site for the purpose of debunking Holocaust denial, does indeed debunk that claim rather effectively.  However, I am definitely not a chemist by training, and rather than go about reinventing the wheel in arguing this with the editor in question, I wonder whether this exact issue has not been dealt with before on this talk page, or the talk page of an associated page.  If so, an editor more experienced in these matters than I might be able to help me understand the issue better.  I am also interested in finding a way of citing both the claims of the band, and the debunking of those claims, in a more NPOV and effective manner.  Can anyone provide me with some guidance?  Kasreyn 17:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kasreyn. You know and I know that you are not a "newbie", and would debate that black was white. This is not the time nor the place to bring up this sort of irrelevancy. Wallie 21:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you're talking about.  I'm aware that Prussian Blue is not particularly notable on this talk page.  However, I had a very reasonable assumption that editors knowledgeable about debunking Holocaust deniers' claims would hang out here, since this article must draw more Holocaust deniers than any other.  And I thank you for your backhanded compliment on my debating skills; I will take it in a positive light.  However, no matter how good I am at rhetoric, if I don't have an underpinning of knowledge, I can't construct any really effective arguments.  I've never actually gone toe-to-toe with a Holocaust debunker before.  I wouldn't want to botch my first time at bat, which is why I'm here asking for a coach.  In any case, it's beginning to appear moot, as Overthrow seems to have fallen silent and is no longer replying.  Kasreyn 22:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not particularly worth arguing with Holocaust deniers; if their intellect was suited to logical discussion, they wouldn't be Holocaust deniers in the first place, since Holocaust denial is built on lie after lie. (Of course, they'll say that about their opponents too.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble is that they still must be argued with, in order to prevent their numbers from growing through convincing the ignorant.  Some deniers, like some "intelligent design" pushers, are highly skilled at projecting the appearance of being scientific.  The solution is to arm oneself with the facts, which are what I came here for.  Kasreyn 23:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I know. A quick look through the archives shows I've spent more than my share of time arguing with them. In this case, I'd think that "who gives a shit what two addled 12-year-olds' opinions about the Holocaust are?" should suffice, but I know it won't. Literally, however, the paper does not disprove what the girls said about the absence of Prussian Blue in the gas chambers; what the paper (as well as others) does prove is that the absence of Prussian Blue does not mean they were not gas chambers. Here's another article, same guy, less technical: . --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I'm amazed that all these scientists base all their experiments on scraping the walls of Auschwitz-Birkenau.  Maybe there's something I've missed, but wouldn't replication be simpler?  Build a replica of the chambers, down to the same materials of bricks, paint, pipes, floor, everything.  Get some Zyklon-B and fill the empty room with gas for however much time it would have taken to murder millions of people.  Then measure the walls.  Even taking into account the necessity of calculating the effects of age and decay on the real walls, how hard could it be?  Kasreyn 00:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I might be missing something here, Kasreyn. But you introduced these people, these "holocaust deniers" as you call them, into the equation. Why? Are you trying to start a debate with yourself? I do not know what your agenda is to even talk about this on this discussion page. Wallie 22:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have already explained adequately why I came to this discussion page:  to seek help in dealing with Overthrow.  I feel that a proper reading of my remarks would indicate this, and I know you're a bright guy, so the only reason I am left with for your incomprehension is that you did not read my remarks carefully enough.  Kasreyn 02:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the deniers are lying, and they claim that non-holocaust deniers are lying, one objective question comes to mind. Who stands to benefit most from the lies they tell? 147.10.24.157 01:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help requested for a newbie to debunking deniers. 

message: The article states that the term genocide was coined during the Holocaust.  Wouldn't it make sense to link it to the genocide entry which explains who actually coined the term and why?
*Sure, and it's linked in the very first sentence in the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term genocide 

message: Don't get me wrong, the Holocaust was a condemnable and terrible thing (that really happened). The word genocide is used a lot, but doesn't genocide imply that ALL of the Jews/Polish/"Undesirables" were murdered? Isn't this technically attempted genocide. By the same token what happened in Rwanda was attempted (thankfully it wasn't successful). You see what I mean? It's a question worth asking. If it is a question of definition... who's do we accept? Angrynight 23:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Genocide 

message: There has been a number of TV programs recently indicating that French people actually had one of the best records of saving Jewish people. When the Germans occupied France, their soldiers took all the food they could, and many French people virtually starved. Many French people would share any little food they could find with Jewish people trying to hide from the Germans. The article as it stands appears to be very harsh on the French people. Any thoughts? Any personal knowledge? Wallie 19:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, the Dutch who through Anne Frank and other dairies created a myth of exceptional assistance to Jews during the Second World War, had one of the worst records. gidonb 20:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Some municipal services and others held a partial strike during two days in Amsterdam and some places in the area, initiated by activists of the underground Communist Party of the Netherlands. Students in Delft and Leiden struck for one day to commemorate the deportation of their Jewish fellow students. The huge attention for these events, mostly by the Dutch themselves, assisted in creating the myth. In case you haven't already, please read WP:NPA. gidonb 23:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not suggesting that you live in a myth. In fact I believe that you live beyond the myth. I do suggest however, Rex, not to be instrumental in recreating it. The myth is offensive to some Dutch people just as well. gidonb 15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, is http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-gerstens00.htm all lies? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know Germanus, that if you complain that your country is getting unfair treatment, then various people will try to rub salt into the wounds. I personally think it is pathetic and probably worse, as some of these people are Administrators who should be setting an example, not a bad one. I also know people who lived and suffered through the Holocaust who would definitely not be impressed by these statements against the Dutch. Wallie 22:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What about the Dutch people who protected her? Do you only look for the bad in people? Wallie 13:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is an argument over the fact that Anne Frank was hidden and betrayed by Dutch people. However, the diary was written before she was betrayed or at least knew she was betrayed. The emphasis on the diaries and the great pride Dutch take or took in those who acted against the Nazis were instrumental in creating what is now known as the myth. There were additional factors. The official Dutch historian of WWII was protective of the Dutch government in exile and especially of the Queen. And the collaborators vanished quickly after the war: quite a few received capital punishment, some escaped, some were killed by the resistance after the liberation, and a large group of people sentenced to jail (or to death but pardoned by the Queen) saw their terms incredibly shortened. Only very few sat for long periods of time. Many did not get any punishment - it was just too widespread. There was some bias of survivors as well, many of them were saved by people hiding them, but their murdered family members were not. Lets not forget however that the pride Dutch take in the resistance by itself is not wrong - just imagine that the Dutch would take pride in the collaboration with the Nazis - yet the emphases on certain themes has caused a wide misunderstanding of the horrors of the Dutch-Jewish Holocaust. We are behind that phase now. gidonb 06:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Any opinions on to what degree the Dutch collaborated with the Nazis are irrelevant. Only facts matter. Can anyone show me numbers, statistics, on the quantity of collaborators in France? In The Netherlands? In Belgium? In Poland? In Romania? Etc. Or on the number of those who enlisted in the German army? The German SS? If those facts are to be found somewhere in an archive or in a publication, how do we compare and interprete them? For the time being, my conclusion (and my advice) is: please do not assume anything on the basis of your own personal bias.--Willem Huberts 15:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then please follow your own advice. This section was opened on the basis of discussing the French helping the Jewish people. It has been twisted into an attack on the Dutch. If you wish to discuss the Dutch, you should open a new discussion section on that topic. Wallie 22:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to discuss the Dutch. Nor do I want to discuss the French. I just want to emphasize that if anyone is discussing the Dutch or the French in regard to their attitude towards the Jews during WW2, they'd better stick to facts, in stead of opinions.--Willem Huberts 08:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  France and the Netherlands 

message: Have a look at what I first wrote.
There has been a number of TV programs recently indicating that French people actually had one of the best records of saving Jewish people. When the Germans occupied France, their soldiers took all the food they could, and many French people virtually starved. Many French people would share any little food they could find with Jewish people trying to hide from the Germans. The article as it stands appears to be very harsh on the French people. Any thoughts? Any personal knowledge?
What has this got to do with collaboration or the Dutch. This was intended to be a discussion about the French. Wallie 21:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, lets keep the topics separated from now on. gidonb 22:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: France continued

message: This article recently was nominated for Delisting from GA. A major concern is that all images have either incorrect copyright tags (PD - author died over 100 years ago), obsolete tags or where fair use is claimed no rationale. Gnangarra 15:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA status -  

message: I have just finished reading Mary Doria Russel's "A Thread of Grace" , which is a novel about the plight (and shelter) of both the Italian Jewish population and of Jewish refugees at the end of WWII in northern Italy.  This is, of course, fiction, but it appears to be based in quite a bit of reliable research.  Both this article and the Italian Front article on WWII seem to mention very little.  Since I'm comparatively new here and this is a controversial topic, I thought I would mention it here to see if it has been previously considered. -- Semifreddo 20:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it hasn't. The Italian people certainly protected Jewish people, and the church too. Do not worry about this being a controversial topic. This is exactly the sort of comment, and the way it is put that people would welcome as a breath of fresh air. Wallie 13:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian Sheltering of Jews 

message: Holocaust (Türkçe) - tr:Yahudi Soykırımı
*I'm assuming good faith, but before I install this link, I'd like some independent verification that that article is indeed the right link; I don't read Turkish, but it puzzles me that an article on the Holocaust talks about George W. Bush. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please put the Turkish Wikipedia weblink of the Holocaust article 

message: The Turkish Holocaust Wikipedia article tr:Yahudi Soykırımı  is definately inadequate though not biased or racist in anyway. But it urgently has to be brought up to professional Wikipedia standarts, and the English language text is perfect for translation into Turkish. One does not have to speak nor understand Turkish in order to see that the article is poorly prepared. Is there anybody in the Wikipedia realm up for this task? Please? Thank you for your contributions.
To answer --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ about the inclusion of George W. Bush in the Turkish Holocaust Wikipedia article.
In the Turkish Holocaust Wikipedia article under the section Holocaust Denial, diverging views about this article are given: 
U.S. President George W. Bush demanding that the denial of the Holocaust should be banned worldwide 
and the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad claiming that the Holocaust is a lie in order to settle Jews in Palestinian lands.
*Thanks. I've inserted the link to tr: as requested. One reason I was suspicious was because the article seemed so short. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can anyone translate the English Holocaust article into Turkish for the Turkish Wikipedia weblink? 

message: Removed this text until some sources are found. As far as I know, the Ustashe weren't anti-Muslim. Indeed, they collaborated well enough in killing Serbs in Herzegovina. Also, the Chetniks were an anti-Nazi guerilla group, so whatever they did, it can't be considered part of the Holocaust. --estavisti 13:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bosniaks 

message: In this section, should the sentence starting "Simon Wiesenthal Center..." instead begin "The Simon Wiesenthal Center..."?--83.67.93.132 12:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbs 

message: Give your opinion on Talk:The_Holocaust/Polls!
- -  s<span
style='font-size:7.5pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Microsoft Sans Serif";color:red'>Y</span><span
style='mso-bidi-font-family:"Microsoft Sans Serif"'>ndicate</span> talk  08:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes (And Wiki is not an International Court - see above). Mousescribe ;;12:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes Sysrpl 14:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes (reffering to the question in the section title, what about the linked page?) Str1977 (smile back) 14:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Nazrac, if you read my statement above and the poll page you'll see that I already said everything you just said. I created the poll page because I couldn't figure out what we agree on and what not. The poll makes it clear that all the disagreements on this page are not because we have different views on whether the Holocaust was murder or not. -  s<span
style='font-size:7.5pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Microsoft Sans Serif";color:red'>Y</span><span
style='mso-bidi-font-family:"Microsoft Sans Serif"'>ndicate</span> talk  22:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the article refer to the Holocaust as murder? 

message: I will try to say this gently, as I am aware that the issue of the Holocaust has a very deep emotional impact, being one of the greatest crimes of history.  It is a sensitive subject and so must be approached with sensitivity.  But I still feel I have to say that this article needs much better inline sourcing.  Yes, it has 57 sources, but the article is 114kb long.  It amounts to one source every two kilobytes.  This is not enough for an article this important.
To go into detail:  At a glance, the subsections on cruelty, victims, communists, religious groups, searching for records, execution of, pogroms, euthanasia, extermination camps, Jewish resistance, rescuers, fascist Italy, Bulgaria, German-occupied Soviet territories, who authorized the killings?, obedience (great job on mention of the Milgram experiment btw), functionalism vs. intentionalism, religious hatred and racism, displaced persons and the state of israel, legal proceedings against Nazis, Legal action against genocide, holocaust theology, art and literature, and holocaust memorial days, are all lacking inline sourcing.
It appears that most of these sections rely on main article elsewhere.  I haven't looked at these articles yet, but I'm sure that when I do I will find that they are well sourced.  However, it's not sufficient for us to simply source a claim by linking to another article that contains the source.  What if the source is removed from that other article?  How will this article's editors be aware of that, and find a new source?  Clearly, best practise is to replicate the citation in every article that makes use of the claim rather than relying on inter-article linking.
From the amount of vandalism it receives, I consider this one of the most important articles at Wikipedia.  It needs to be made stronger and better sourced so it can hold up to vandalism as well as intense scrutiny.  I notice that poor sourcing is one of the reasons this article failed in its nomination to be a Featured Article.  That was more than a year ago!  Isn't it time for another try for FA?
I will try to find time to read some of the main articles on these other sections and copy inline sources to this article.  Other claims I am sure will be easy to find sources for using Google.  Kasreyn 16:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess most, if not everybody, agree here with you. There's just one little point: although on-line sources are nice, because one can check them immediately, on such a subject, I think most people who've add here do so out of specific knowledge (historical studies, books, etc.). Book sources are really important too...Tazmaniacs 17:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you may have misunderstood me slightly...  I was referring to in-line, not on-line sourcing.  An in-line source is a source which has a footnote which links to the bottom of the page.  The actual source info at the bottom of the page can be a link to an external website, or a dead-tree book, or a magazine or journal, or whatever.  I'm not concerned with what media the source itself is printed in, be it online or a book.  I'm concerned that claims have in-line sources so that claims can be more precisely and specifically sourced.  Ie., rather than hunting through a whole book on the Holocaust to find the source cited here, we can use an in-line source here and, in the reference section, note the page number cited.  Cheers, Kasreyn 19:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All right. WP:RS is certainly a necessity, all the more in this major article which can still be hugely improved. Tazmaniacs 13:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: What's with the "Forget-me-not as a symbol" section, and what does it have to do with impact on culture? It seems so minor that it should appear, if anywhere, in a subarticle. zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. It has nothing to do here, maybe in the Freemason article. WP:Be bold! Tazmaniacs 13:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Forget-me-not

message: Why is there no controversy section for this article? Most other articles on topics of this nature have a controversy section but this one is utterly lacking for some reason. I've heard of controversy in regards to myths about the holocaust that were fabrications (e.g. NAZI's making soap out of victims), disputes about the number of victims, and even controversy about the Auschwitz camp - for example one building was alleged to be a gas chamber but many doubt this based on evidence they have gathered (not the mortuary buildings - it was an air raid shelter building that some believe was converted to a gas chanmber). This article needs a controversy section to address disputes about the holocaust history, just like any other Wikipedia page. JettaMann 16:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Say what now? Did you say "for this sort of foolishness"? I'm talking about a  section for legitimate controversey, not some made up conspiracy theories. You seem to think that for some reason this article is different from others. How can a topic this wide ranging not have any controversy? That would be an assinine assumption to make for any article, let alone this article. There are plenty of controversies addressed by legitimate sources in magazine, TV, books, and academia. To ignore them makes no sense to me.JettaMann 16:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You must understand that this is an article about the special tragedy of the special, chosen people. Nobody is allowed to question it, especially if one is a gentile. Did not you figure it out by now? 
*As I've pointed out above, there is already too much unsourced material in the article.  Efforts should be focused towards sourcing the existing claims, not adding new unsourced claims.  Kasreyn 22:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy Section

message: The article mentions that 'Norwegian police rounded up 750 Jews (73%)'. It is unclear what 73% refers to. --Spet1363 20:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If both are true, then Norway only had 1027 Jews to begin with.  That seems rather low to me.  Kasreyn 04:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the ambiguous 73% reference (it was unclear what the proportion is making a reference to and was unreferenced). I also moved Slovakia to its own subsection within the list. It is an independent nation after all and has little to do with Norway, IMO. --129.67.89.102 12:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 73%

message: Okay, speaking as a Holocaust survivor's grandson, I suggest that we add more information than just the paragraph on Holocaust survivors. My grandmother goes to child survivor groups and some survivors were from other generations, older than here, of course, but ... my point stands. I think that the survivor's section of the Holocaust article is a bit of a stub. 
Leopard Gecko 00:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survivors Section In Need

message: The article List of Holocaust victims has an overly broad interpretation, in my opinion. It includes in the list, for example, officers in the German military who were courtmartialled for plotting to depose Hitler. I proposed that that article be renamed to People who lost their lives at the hands of the Nazis but nobody seems interested in that proposal. As written, I think that article with its current title is at best confusing and at worst offensive. This should probably be discussed at Talk:List of Holocaust victims. --Mathew5000 04:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. Say a German SS officer died in a death camp, for the crime of refusing to kill Jews? How about a Jew who personally murdered other Jews in order to remain in good standing with the Nazi regime, but was killed in the end? Maybe List of Nazi atrocities covers the extreme cases? Ronabop 05:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see your point. As far as I know, the Nazis did not use death camps to punish their own SS officers for insubordination. Didn't they have firing squads for that purpose? In any event, maybe you could quibble about whether such a person is correctly described as a "Holocaust victim" (I'd say not) but the Wikipedia article in question lists many individuals who clearly are not "Holocaust victims" under any reasonable definition. That's why the title of the article should be changed. List of Nazi atrocities is not a good name for the content of that list, because it's a list of individuals. Plus, it is not an "atrocity" for a military organization to execute one of its officers for insubordination. (It may be unjust, it may be reprehensible, but it is not an atrocity.) --Mathew5000 07:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point might be hard to see, if a given perspective already has a strictly delimited definition of the "Holocaust". It's a sensitive word. So, let's back up. Some people *may* consider the Shoah to be *a part*, or *the whole*, of the Holocaust, others may consider the Holocaust to be any action which killed "üntermenschen", etc. In your own words as I understand them, you find some people who are currently listed in List of Holocaust victims as failing "under any reasonable definition", which leads me to ask what the *exact criteria* you are using for "any reasonable definition"? Could that lead us down a road where key-points of your terminology can be used? Ronabop 08:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you're getting at. Looking at the article List of Holocaust victims, do you think that is a good name for that article? Do you think it is a better name for that article than something like List of victims of the Nazis? --Mathew5000 13:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia article List of Holocaust victims 

message: A lot of evidence is showing up that is saying that the Jewish Holocuast is not what it was made out to be. 	 
 		 
This is some information to look over; it does challenge the conventional story. And before anyone starts making accusations of biase or anti-Semiticism...it is not I looked through it all. Zionists and Jews are not the same thing, neither are ISraelis and Jews. Just look at it to expand your horizons on the issue. 
These are all documentaries on Zionism, the Holocaust, and how portions of it were fabricated or adultered. The first two is just collected information and also claims that there is a link with Septmeber 11, 2001 and the third was is a full visual documentary with interviews and academic explanations. 	 
 		 
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1984095615597363412&q=911+Stranger 	 
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5382004121587104053&q=Germans+and+Zionists 	 
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=7272889307599304093&q=WWII+commentary 	 
This is the full text of Benjamin Freedman's speech...a Jew who was once a leading ZIonist who later left the movement and said it was behind the death of Jews and both World Wars 	 
	
http://compuserb.com/benfreed.htm 	 
69.196.164.190
*See Holocaust denial. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 13:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there an article on Wiki challenging the claims of the Jewish Holocuast?

message: The Abandonment Of The Jews is about a book which discusses 'Who knew about the killings?', so I think it is appropriate to merge any new material into this article. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 12:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please explain why this book deserves its own article. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 12:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could explain why it doesn't deserve it's own article? If the book is not notable, then we should merge. If it is notable, give it its own article. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The book itself may be interesting, but in all cases the article needs work. Content shouldn't be merged here without previous work, as it doesn't explain anything right now, just assert that the Allies didn't "save Jews" although they could. The article should go & explain the author's thesis in a more thorough manner. If the book is notable, this page is already huge, and it certainly deserves its own article. Tazmaniacs 16:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 'The Abandonment Of The Jews' into 'Who knew about the killings?' 

message: I merged the references and external links from Holocaust (resources) back in here. Please see the Wikipedia policy on references and external links: they are supposed to be put in the main article, not moved in other place. Also, there is an excessive number of books and links: maybe they should be trimmed and only the most important/influential kept and some the rest being be moved to more specific articles. bogdan 22:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is too long, even without the references it is 114k - way beyond normal bounds. Also there is no reason to cut down on the references, who decides? - and just because of a generic "rule"? it is a helpful resource, make it a "list of" article. The holocaust is unique in the amount of references available, it's not the typical subject. -- Stbalbach 23:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The references can be put into sub-articles, e.g. references regarding the death camps can go into that article, regarding, etc. - FrancisTyers · 23:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  A real article on the Historiography of Holocaust would be ok, but not just a list of books and sites. bogdan 23:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  Each article page should be an article on its own, not the dependency of some other article. bogdan 23:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't there a CSD for this? A3? - FrancisTyers · 23:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Historiography of the Holocaust waiting for us... Tazmaniacs 16:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A list of references is not a historiography. More like a bibliography. -- Stbalbach 18:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Holocaust (resources)]] 

message: why are people so stuck up over this? why is it okay to joke about the mass exterminations of native americans, aztecs, christians, muslims, and animals, but not jews? Oh, here comes the bs about "how dare you compare jews to so-and-so!!!" people act like someone joking about the holocaust is a grave danger to the entire universe. guess what - we're not the center of the universe. we don't really matter at all, actually. everything's subjective. If the nazis had won ww2, you would all have very different opinions about the holocaust. there will be a million more holocausts too, but atleast not in Israel, as they seem to be the only country ever to have learned a damn lesson from history. I have to give Israel credit for that. Then you people prance on here and act like your opinion matters at all, all the while people are being legally murdered all around you and somehow you miss that. all the while you put animals to sleep because they didn't act like you wanted them to. just shut up and stop acting like anything matters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.9 (talk • contribs) 23:56, August 7, 2006
*Do you have any suggestions for improving the article? That is, of course, the sole purpose of these talk pages. -jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you can't even print a cartoon of mohammed without setting off a global crisis, here's some guy telling us jews are too sensitive, it's "okay to joke about the mass exterminations of muslims". Gzuckier 17:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rampant bs coming from all directions here