Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 15

message: Anyone else who feels that Hayden5650 should get another blocking, because of persistent disruptive edits (and I mean not only here with expressions like "euthanasia of Jews", but also in many other articles). He just came back from another block (more info at User talk:Hayden5650 and User_talk:125.237.116.59), but it seems he did not corrected the demeanour. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 09:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so you know, I was blocked as a result of changing the term 'female actor' to 'actress' in several articles. There is so much PC drivel on here. --Hayden5650 11:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Now this issue may be discussed also at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#New_block_for_Hayden5650. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 14:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't flatter yourself Hayden5650, you were blocked for your personal attacks and vandalism to the Homosexuality article. I, as any Wikipedian would think that an image of homosexuals brutally executed at the top of the Homosexuality article seems sick enough to block you indefinitely so there is no need for you filibuster on how bureaucratic we are.
Celtic Emperor 21:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Hayden5650|Hayden5650]]

message: Oh joy, I'm being tag teamed again; such a joy to be shoved towards the electric fence over and over every week. So what's the real problem with this small section in the article? SlimVirgin claimed it was article length, but Moshe just reverted my last edit anyway, removing the section and making the article longer. -- Kendrick7talk 13:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what's y'alls ''real'' problem with the "Resistance" section? 

message: The current version states:
If any change is made to it, it has to be self consistent. To say "scholars disagree", leaving the parts "generally used" and "defining it as the genocide of the Jews", is (facts and issues aside) inconsistent and logically broken. Crum375 20:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All those characterizations are contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:V which require that characterizations such as "many" or "most" or "generally" be clearly cited, qualified, and quantified if possible.  Fourdee 21:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct Crum375, my edit did leave it in a confusing state. But even several of the web-available sources under [4] seem to hedge their bets, as it were, and are themselves self-contradictory, and one scholar there mocks the issue as a sort of "victimization Olympics." But Fourdee is correct too, "many" here is a clear WP:AWW problem. I'm open to suggestions? -- Kendrick7talk 21:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that topic and the specific verbiage were debated at some length, and the wording we have is a balanced compromise version. Crum375 22:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's clearly incorrect from the sources given, and it's using weasel words. I'll try to come up with something. -- Kendrick7talk 23:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see people are just reverted without discussion. I'm still open to a version of this sentence without weasel words. I'll just add a disputed tag until this is settled. -- Kendrick7talk 02:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many references are needed to justify "many"?  Or can it never be used? I count 12 references in the footnote and could add Jäckel and Rohwer, Fleming and Goldhagen (controversial, but for other reasons). In my reading only the Britannica is incorrect in that it refers on the one hand to the "millions of others" yet on the other hand talks about the "final solution of the Jewish question" which did not include the millions of others.  You could write "some important holocaust scholars"?  You could count the number of people named in the references, i.e. "4 holocaust scholars" but that would be misleading since clearly there are more who would use the definition. (see for example historian Stephen Welsh's  ). Or maybe "at least 5 holocaust scholars" but that seems just a little too precious.  I would not be against waltzing with the weasel.  Most of what I have been reading defines holocaust as the "final solution...". Joel Mc 10:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is WP:OR. We're not allowed to just pick a set of references out of a hat and make weasel-worded conclusions; that's the very principle behind WP:AWW. This given ref  also contradicts the statement, as it cites a whole list of scholars who would or would not include Romanis, but our citation just picks one of these which supports the "not" view. What's the problem with saying scholars disagree here? -- Kendrick7talk 16:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, when you have many scholars saying the same thing, then it's not OR to state "many scholars say xyz". In any event, I've now provided a sources that explicitly states that "many scholars" restrict it to Jews. Jayjg (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Kendrick, the source explicitly states Many scholars. Please desist from further WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Jayjg. It's WP:AWW -- if you remove the weasel word "many" it becomes a POV statement. Obviously, there are any number of scholars who do include these groups. Got a train to catch; no time to quote WP:AWW back to you, but it's like the first paragraph.... -- Kendrick7talk 01:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The source explicitly says many scholars. It's not "weasel words" when the source explicitly says it. And there shouldn't be any need to quote WP:POINT to you, but, sadly, it seems there is. Jayjg (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Applicability of the term Holocaust

message: We are dealing with several citations and phrasings which I am contesting:
*"The persecution and genocide were accomplished in stages." - does not appear to be cited at all, only citation in paragraph is in quotes at end and appears unrelated.
*"Every arm of Germany's bureaucracy was involved in the logistics of the mass murder, turning the country into what one Holocaust scholar has called "a genocidal nation."" - What's the citation for "every arm" and "mass murder" as they don't appear to be directly from the quoted scholar, if they are from him, what are the facts he stated which have been paraphrased?  If "genocidal nation" isn't defamatory, cited or not, I don't know what would be.  Might as well cite "germans are murderers" or "jews are usurers" - I'm sure some "scholar" has said as much.  Anyway, the rest doesn't appear to be cited, or has been questionably paraphrased. 
*"The slaughter was systematically conducted in virtually all areas of Nazi-occupied territory in what are now 35 separate European countries.Holocaust Map of Concentration and Death Camps" - looking at this cited map, it makes no mention of "slaughter" or "systematically" - personally I'm not worried about "systematically" since that is probably cited elsewhere, but what is the basis for this term "slaughter"?  It's not directly cited here at all.
*"It was at its worst in Central and Eastern Europe, which had more than seven million Jews in 1939." - phrasing is ambiguous (worst meaning most or least successful?), "worst" is "very obviously a value", appears to be loosely paraphrased or not cited.
There seems to be a lot of paraphrasing going on, and a practice of tossing a citation at the end of a piece of original research and claiming it to be cited when in the one case I was able to check the source it made no mention of anything which was supposedly cited.  At least three, probably all of these statements appear to fail WP:V alone and are, like any uncited statement, subject to be removed at any time.  They also fail the "very obviously a value" standard of WP:NPOV and offer no balance.  I am questioning all of these citations and asking to see the actual text from which they are taken and the justifications for the particular paraphrasings.  I'm not convinced any of these are even citations of the sources listed.  Fourdee 13:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Contested or missing citations

message: Some editors are making the rather bizarre claim that to accuse Nazi authorities and groups of the Holocaust constitutes defamation. Since defamation only relates to false allegations, this doesn't apply. --Leifern 15:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The claims in question are "genocidal nation" (applied to all of Germany, not just the government, not just the Nazis, not just the SS, not just the convicted direct perpetrators) and "murder" which on a quick review of the trial transcripts is not how the killings were legally described - extermination seems to be the term used.  Both of those appear to be false "allegations" at this point.  See for yourself in the Eichmann transcripts  - the charges do not specify "muder", they say "extermination", "deaths of", etc.  The "genocidal nation" is at least attributed to someone but is so clearly defamatory, not scholarly, not factual, and generally biased that it needs to be balanced with something and it is questionable why it is included at all.  Fourdee 15:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you somehow think "murder" is less NPOV than "extermination"? "Extermination" imputes a motive to the killings far nastier than mere murder. "Genocidal nation" is actually quite factual: take a nation and brainwash it using Nazi tactics for a decade, and guess what -- it works. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, whatever - "extermination" is the term used in the legal documents (as well as "killings of", "deaths of" that sort of thing but not "murder"), and in that light should be used in all cases instead of "murder".  I do think "murder" is more pejorative than "extermination" but that's not as important as which legal terms were used, which is itself just a fact.  And if the whole nation of Germany carried out the "genocide" why were only a handful of people even tried for it, and some acquitted?  If there is no legal conviction, how is this purported crime-of-a-nation a fact?  Who's to say?  At the least we need to offer the other side of it, the defenses and justifications offered by the people who did it, and any evidence that participation and/or knowledge may not have been universal as implied by the above quote.  Fourdee 15:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The nation of Germany committed the crimes. That individual citizens of the nation of Germany did not commit the crimes is simply irrelevant; nobody's saying "every German was a mass murderer". --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps.  The claim that every segment of the government participated needs to be verified, and there are probably some differing points of view on that.  We still haven't addressed whether all of the contested phrasings above are actual citations (one is definitely not a citation), and if they are properly paraphrased.Fourdee 16:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It would appear that neither  Berenbaum nor Friedländer have been read very carefully.  It is a fact that the Holocaust expert Michael Berenbaum wrote the Germany became "a genocidal nation" which he explains with evidence that "every arm" of the bureaucracy was involved.  Friedländer finds no social institution which resisted by declaring its solidarity with Jews.  If there are other sides to that, then of course they should be added.  However, we may have to wait a long time for that to happen...Joel Mc 17:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea what the relevance of the "resisting" or "solidarity" is.  I haven't resisted on behalf of or declared solidarity with a great many people who have been killed in my country or by my government, neither have the overwhelming majority of us.  As to whether "every arm" of the bureaucracy was involved in the "mass murder" (which is apparently not precisely what the people who were prosecuted were charged with), since you apparently have these books on hand, can you please help clarify with some actual quotes the questions about how the paraphrase was constructed?  It's pretty hard to believe there are no opposing characterizations but for the moment lets just work with the sources you have and I'll find some later if we can't reach a resolution just through application of WP:V and WP:NPOV to these sources.  Fourdee 18:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I expect that further reading on the subject of the holocaust will clarify the relevance of "resisiting" and "solidarity".  An example can be found at Le Chambon-sur-Lignon.  However the point is that two holocaust researchers have made statements based upon their research.  Doesn't seem to be a POV issue.  Of course those statements can be questioned by offering criticism of their research including alternative evidence. But that is the job of the critic not me.  Joel Mc 05:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defamation 

message: That link that Kendrick "broke" and Slim "fixed" (according to edit comments) seems to actually work with or without the port number in it: version 1 or version 2. *Dan T.* 02:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I got a 404 when I clicked on Kendrick's version, so I switched it back. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What made you turn up to this article suddenly, Dan? You've never edited here before. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes when I get into discussions / debates / whatever in one section of this site, out of curiosity I'll look at edit histories of people involved in them, and that will sometimes lead me to other articles, which, once I've made some minor typo fix or something on, will then wind up in my watch list, bringing me more into the editing of that.  If that's "cyberstalking", so be it.  Anyway, both versions of the link I posted here (with or without the port number) work for me.  Kendrick did at one point post a version with the ".net" top level domain misspelled, which might be the failed one you tried. *Dan T.* 18:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think SlimVirgin is a stranger to that habit himself. Fourdee 19:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never had any encounter with you that I'm aware of, Fourdee, so what do you mean? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Link with port number 

message: Starting with WieselAuschwitzpits.jpg the article is showing a bad formatting problem on my (widescreen) display.  Is there something that can be done about this?  The following several pictures after that (in Victims and death toll) are progressively indented to the left more and more.  This is a common sort of problem when pictures are placed in individual sections and the text will not necessarily be long enough before the next section.  Solutions include placing pictures successively together in a section farther up the page, or reducing the number of picture (this article seems to suffer a bit from "picture spam".  Any ideas?  Fourdee 21:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Severe formatting problem with pictures

message: In this context (in the Holocaust#Disabled and mentally ill section), 
"Volksgenosse" should translate to "fellow German" (singular) instead of "fellow Germans".
The current translation of "Fellow Germans, that's your money too" would translate back into 
"Volksgenossen, das ist auch euer Geld". I would fix this myself if the article wasn't protected.
(Yes, I know that this is just a minor error but this direct form of address is typical for Nazi propaganda.)
Gnolsitacgnol 16:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "compatriot" would be better than "fellow German", though maybe it sounds too formal in English. Paul B 17:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of "Volksgenosse" 

message: If 2-3 million died in the Holocaust, why is there only a paragraph of information on them? One would think that there would be more to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.43.234 (talk • contribs) 
:I'm intending to write a section on them. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Soviet]] [[POW]]s

message: There does not seem to be any project on the Holocaust, or anyplace to list new articles. Anyway, I created :Category:Holocaust in Estonia and Estonian war crimes trials, 1961. The later one seems to be a honeypot for Estonian Holocaust deniers. -- Petri Krohn 13:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Back here asking more questions, as there does not seem to be a Holocaust project.)
Some Estonian editors want to rename Estonian war crimes trials to Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia. Is there any precedent for such a name?
I can not find any references for the use of the words "Holocaust trials". Google returns links to Holocaust denial trials.
I has been argued, that this group of Estonian editors has in fact an Holocaust denial agenda. It seems to me, that using the words "Soviet Estonia" instead of just Estonia or the proper Estonian SSR is intended to diminish the legitimicy of this court, and to portray it as a show trial. Am I wrong?
Please comment at Talk:Estonian war crimes trials#Requested move. -- Petri Krohn 19:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for has been argued, yes it has.  By one person -- who happens to be called Petri Krohn.  He has made spurious accusations of "Holocaust denial" towards many, many people at least since January.  Ever heard of him? Digwuren 08:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Beats me how naming an article Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia could possibly be construed as Holocaust denial, it just succinctly describes the article which concerns the trial of crimes committed in perpetrating the Holocaust and the trials took place when Estonia was a part of the Soviet Union. If anything, naming it Estonian war crimes trials would tend to diminish the especially heinous crimes of the Holocaust by placing it at the level of a mere War crime. --Martintg 19:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Estonian war crimes trials, 1961]] 

message: :(Back here asking more questions, as there does not seem to be a Holocaust project.)
Some Estonian editors want to rename Estonian war crimes trials to Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia. Is there any precedent for such a name?
I can not find any references for the use of the words "Holocaust trials". Google returns links to Holocaust denial trials.
I has been argued, that this group of Estonian editors has in fact an Holocaust denial agenda. It seems to me, that using the words "Soviet Estonia" instead of just Estonia or the proper Estonian SSR is intended to diminish the legitimicy of this court, and to portray it as a show trial. Am I wrong?
Please comment at Talk:Estonian war crimes trials#Requested move. -- Petri Krohn 19:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for has been argued, yes it has.  By one person -- who happens to be called Petri Krohn.  He has made spurious accusations of "Holocaust denial" towards many, many people at least since January.  Ever heard of him? Digwuren 08:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Beats me how naming an article Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia could possibly be construed as Holocaust denial, it just succinctly describes the article which concerns the trial of crimes committed in perpetrating the Holocaust and the trials took place when Estonia was a part of the Soviet Union. If anything, naming it Estonian war crimes trials would tend to diminish the especially heinous crimes of the Holocaust by placing it at the level of a mere War crime. --Martintg 19:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming controversy 

message: Since Hitler gave lots of speeches, many vitriolic and extreme, there is no easy way to pick a representative quote out of the multitude, assuming we decided we need one. It seems to me that we already established Hitler's intent with the Nuremberg Laws and elsewhere, and adding any more is simply wasting precious article space, where we are already over budget. I would still add quotes, in principle, if they add important new material or aspects of the  Holocaust. But just adding more random Hitler quotes does not enhance the entry at this point, in my opinion. Crum375 23:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What could be more relevant to the article?  These are primary sources and generally trump a third party characterizing someone's statements. Fourdee 23:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Primary sources are actually inferior to secondary sources, especially in contentious cases. So good secondaries here will normally trump the others. In addition, my point above had nothing to do with source quality, and everything to do with relevance (making new points or adding new information), given that we are already over budget space-wise. Crum375 00:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's more reliable, what Hitler actually said, or what someone says he said?  I misspoke when I characterized this as a primary source (although it is in a sense) - it's a secondary source stating a fact (a source stating what Hitler said), versus a secondary source interpreting what he said for us.  Fourdee 00:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means it's not a collection of scientific papers with near-raw results or facts. As a tertiary source, our goal is to present information that is analyzed and interpreted by others, who are qualified experts in the field, wherever possible. In the case of a Hitler speech, it would generally be reliable, if it comes from a reliable published source, but experts can help interpret it and place it in the proper historical perspective. So the issue is not whether Hitler said those words, but how they should be interpreted, and their relative significance compared to all the other events. There is also the issue of writing and presentation - we have limited space into which we must squeeze a huge amount of potential material, and this is where our collective editorial judgment comes into play, in deciding on what material to select, where to place it, how to present it, and to ensure good writing and flow. Crum375 00:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler quotes 

message: *I tried to add what I thought was an important and well-cited proviso to the paragraph blaming all of Germany for the holocaust, to wit that the public and even Hitler's inner circle were told that what was happening was deportation.  Seems pretty significant - albeit a small addition to the article - SlimVirgin immediately removed it without comment.
*I tried to remove material which I think everyone agreed was not supported by its citation (map doesn't show 35 countries or anything else stated, appears to be used in synthesis) - SlimVirgin immediately restored it without comment.
*What better balance could be added to the article than a few of Hitler's own words?  Or perhaps Eichmann?  Can these men not be allowed to speak even briefly on their own behalf?  Aren't their statements and motivations quite relevant?  These are facts, preferable to someone else paraphrasing or characterizing for them.
*You point to my (since dropped) insertion of "eradication" as evidence I'm being disruptive when in fact that is probably the best translation of "Ausrottung".  The citation I provided called it "extirpation", and Beolingus, a German-English dictionary, lists all three of eradication, extirpation, and extermination.  At any rate, if a person doing something characterizes his actions a given way, it's at least relevant to mention that - it's a fundamental element of balance in the article, as well as patently on-topic.
*If space is at a premium, why not address the redundant citations of Berenbaum.  His assertions appear twice (and apparently no counter-argument is allowed to be added).
Fourdee 23:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fourdee, I think you'd be spared a lot of aggravation if you first post your proposed changes here for discussion. And I would do it one point at a time, so we don't lose focus. Crum375 00:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd like to see a separate section for each point?  No problem. Fourdee 00:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested changes 

message: SlimVirgin deleted "extirpation" and "eradication" from the meanings of Ausrottung when the source cited uses "extirpation" and the dictionary I checked (Beolingus) lists all 3.  Slim also indicates my use of "eradiction" is evidence of trying to disrupt the article when "extermination" is virtually synonymous and already appears every times.  Also feels that "mass murder" must stay in the section on Berenbaum despite it below being characterized as "killing process".  All seems rather arbitrary.  It's clear the preference for "murder" is one of connotation rather than it being more accurately descriptive, or neutral.  Fourdee 00:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The interpretation of Rosenberg's phrase "ausrottung des Judentums" to mean "elimination of Judaism" rather than "extermination of Jews" was an issue in the Lipstadt/Irving trial. I assume you know this. The problem here is that what you consider to be "neutral" terminology is typical of the kind of evasive bureaucrat-speak preferred by the Nazis themselves, who use it to avoid admission of what they are doing. So what you thin is NPOV can easily be interpreted as a mirror of Nazi POV. Paul B 01:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some representation of the Nazi POV should be made, and at any rate, terms should be selected for their factual accuracy and I think both "eradication" (as currently used in English) and "extermination" are more accurate than "mass murder" as well as lacking the connotation of moral wrongness.  My biggest question is how can both "killing process" and "mass murder" be reasonable paraphrases of the same statements by Berenbaum?  Killing process is neutral, mass murder has a connotation.  The fact editors are fighting tooth and nail to keep "mass murder" in indicates to me that it's a matter of POV-pushing (why else would the preference be so vehement for this single instance of the term?), and that its appearance in the section attributing guilt for these murders to all of Germany is no coincidence at all.  Also reflected by SlimVirgin's refusal to admit counter-statements to the effect that this was not sold as "mass murder" to the participating Germans, but rather as "deportation".  The nuances in terms are quite significant to the claims by Berenbaum and counter-citation should be offered - that's a separate matter I've listed above though.  Fourdee 01:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fourdee, this is starting to become an exercise in absurdity. --Leifern 02:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't want to participate, don't.  I think it's absurd you believe no other points of view should be mentioned, particularly those of the people who actually did this.  Fourdee 02:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fourdee, as I tried to explain to you in the Hitler speeches section above, we need to base the article on the best possible sources. In this type of contentious article, the best sources are established scholarly mainstream historians, who can analyze the copious amounts of evidence and put it all into historical perspective. The source you cite above appears to be a counter holocaust denier site, which has a specific agenda. We prefer sources who are established eminent scholars, who write academic textbooks and papers on the subject and are widely cited. So it boils down to selecting the right sources. We as Wikipedia editors cannot and should not debate specific issues like what the German people knew or didn't know – we need to focus on finding the best possible sources, and quote or rely on them. Crum375 03:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: There are many reasons why terms like "extermination" might be objected to. It's the term used for mass killing of vermin, for example, which is exactly how the Nazis portrayed Jews. So again, what you think of as "neutral" can easily be interpreted as a Nazi POV. I very much doubt that you will find anyone outside the Adolf Fan Club who thinks mass murder is not an accurate term. As for the participating Germans, yes, I think it's reasonable to point out that that the fact that whole of occupied Europe participated in some way can, if phrased misleadingly, imply that everyone in occupied Europe was a willing and knowing accomplice to mass murder. Paul B 10:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ausrottung - extermination, eradication, or extirpation? 

message: Restored without comment by SlimVirgin: 
:The slaughter was systematically conducted in virtually all areas of Nazi-occupied territory in what are now 35 separate European countries.Holocaust Map of Concentration and Death Camps
No statement made is supported by that map, and drawing conclusions from a map is probably original research or synthesis anyway. Fourdee 00:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So please find for us a more correct number of countries with a better source. That will show you really care about improving the quality of the article. Just complaining about it does not help us. Crum375 03:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get it.  The sentence is not cited by what appears to be the citation.  What's the argument for keeping material which has been challenged and for which there is not citation?  I have no idea how many countries the Nazis occupied at the time or how many countries they are today, or which of those had slaughter in them.  As far as I can tell the map shows 5 "death camps" in 1 country and about 22, 23 modern countries one of which at least I know was not occupied by the Nazis.  The citation does not support Any statement made in that sentence, and I get the feeling this may be par for the course with citations in this article, but this one has been identified.   According to the map, "There were 5 death camps in Poland" that's it.  Uncited material should be cited or removed and nobody seems in the least interested in fixing this so it should be removed.  The onus is ON THE PERSON WHO RESTORES MATERIAL to provide the citation!  There's no ambiguity about this.  Fourdee 04:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true about contentious issues. In this case, we have an article under construction, where not everything in it is perfectly sourced. So we are working on improving the sourcing, and it takes time. We need all the help we can get, and if you are so concerned about this article, please help us improve its sourcing. Just complaining about the quality of a source for a minor non-contentious issue is not helpful.  Crum375 05:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited statements w/ map citation