Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 12

message: THIS REQUIRES MAXIMAL ATTENTION: THE PAGE HAS BEEN VANDALIZED. COULD A REGISTERED USER PLEASE CHANGE THE ARTICLE TO THE LATEST VERSION BEFORE THE ACT OF VANDALISM?
Please sign your posts.  What is the vandalism?  What do you object to?  Just comment on the proposed change below. Repentance 20:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism and nonsense on this page!!!=

message: I will start replacing them with ones with better coppy wright tags tonight. Mass deportations is the first to get replaced. Sorce- the maps in question. Licence- my own coppys and so no coppywright- Action startd at 05.00 U.T.C. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Homer slips. (talk • contribs) 19:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Those 3 Smithsonian maps with dodgey coppyright licences.

message: There is no proper section dedicated to the history of the rescues, that is, how and when the first steps and measures were taken to save whom and which of the victims of the holocaust and, in general, the Nazi control of the government. It gives little to no enviroment to the fact that heroes existed that did their best to save the dying.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.185.213 (talk • contribs) 
I agree. --Homer slips. 06:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The upper side

message: # What is the purpose of your questions?
# Do you imagine Wikipedia Talk: pages are the place for holding debates on the veracity of the Holocaust?
# Do you imagine that these questions have not been asked before on a dozen Holocaust denial websites, or are you pretending that they are unique to you?
# Have you mistaken Wikipedia Talk: pages for a Stormfront message board? Jayjg (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions for Jtpaladin

message: None of the conversations about the article seemed to be current, so it seemed a good time to archive the entire talk page. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While applauding Turkey's self-interest actions in taking in Jewish exiles as outlined in the aforementioned book, sadly, that's only part of the story. I think it's important to note how Turkey was an ally of Germany in WWI (causing the death of many British soldiers and other allied troops and civilians) and made it possible for the Nazi war-machine to march forward during WWII. Turkey changed sides and declared war on Nazi Germany only a very short time before the end of WII.
Some very interesting articles regarding "Nazi Gold" hidden in Germany (yes, this includes the gold stolen from Jewish Holocaust victims). Consider:
U.S. State Department [Eizenstat] Report on U.S. and Allied Wartime and Postwar Relations and Negotiations With Argentina, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Turkey on Looted Gold and German External Assets and U.S. Concerns About the Fate of the Wartime Ustasha Treasury (June 1998) 
U.S. State Department [Eizenstat] Report on Allied Relations and Negotiations With Turkey 
One quote from this report is particularly disturbing: The principal source of gold in this latter category was the "Melmer" account in which the SS deposited gold bars, coins, jewelry, and dental fillings that it robbed from its Jewish and non-Jewish victims at the killing centers and concentration camps. 
U.S State Department Preliminary Study on U.S. and Allied Efforts To Recover and Restore Gold and Other Assets Stolen or Hidden by Germany During World War II (Includes Finding Aids to Records at the National Archives) (May 1997) 
U.S. State Department Holocaust Assets 
PBS Frontline Nazi Gold 
PBS Frontline Turkey 
Also, related International Press articles:
The Daily Telegraph Neutral countries accused over Nazi gold (Jun. 2, 1998) 
CNN Report: Neutral nations' trade kept Nazi war machine going (Jun. 2, 1998) 
CNN Solidarity lacking as conference on Nazi gold ends (Dec. 4 1997)
CNN World War II allies attacked at Nazi gold conference (Dec. 3, 1997)
CNN 'Harsh report' critical of Swiss-Nazi gold (May 6, 1997) 
CNN 'Nazi gold' settlement mixes intangibles with money (Aug. 21, 1998) 
Turkey has yet to acknowledge, apologize, and make amends for not only the Armenian Holocaust but also for the WII Holocaust. Jtpaladin 19:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: This is a retarded argument, however, the numbers do need to coincide. There are various numbers throughout the article which are inconsistent. They should all be given in ranges until a more positive number or narrower range can be agreed upon (never?).
The other issue is the denial of a holocaust. This should have a complete section on it, reasons and quoted studies as to why it exist, what evidence this theory presents... seriously, this is an encyclopedia, not a place to puke out your nutball theories. -me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Soyloquequieres (talk • contribs) 07:27, November 8, 2006(UTC). 
:Soyloquequieres: For Holocaust denial, look here (inside the article) or here (this is its own article). Also, you might want to consult this policy about commenting in a more friendly tone. Thanks! -- weirdoactor t|c -- 07:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are correct. It's probably closer to 14 million, when one includes Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Homosexuals, and others the Nazis considered "worthy" of death. Of course, Stalin still "wins" by killing 20 million of his own people. Weirdoactor 18:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Uh... Well, Jews got so scared of extinction, that they started breeding like crazy. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 21:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Er... yes, somebody should research the Holocaust. maybe even write a book about it... Gzuckier 15:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  11 million 

message: imagine you are a schoolchild embarking on your first research on the holocaust for school, how confused would you be after reading this?. this page would personally have confused the shit out of me if i had have known nothing previously about it. we need to make this page more comprehensive and simple, atleast in the opening few paragraphs. i dont have the time to do it myself, that and the last time i tried to i got blocked for some reason.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.175.127 (talk • contribs) 
:I tend to agree. Some ideas start out quite simply. But different people add and add and add to the sentences complicating them further and further. It may be an idea to have a very simple intro, and move the technical stuff further down the way for the experts actually who want to read all of it. Wallie 22:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  restructure massively 

message: Since encarta, American Heritage Dictionary, and wiktionary all define
"The Holocaust" as involving killing, I propose that the first sentence
in this article should be changed to remove the phrase, 
"state-led systematic persecution and"—Preceding unsigned comment added by Olorinish (talk • contribs) 
:Do you mean that "state-led systematic persecution and genocide" implies that killing wasn't involved? -- Donald Albury 11:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am saying that the current article implies that the persecution actions were part of the Holocaust, which is inconsistent with more accepted definitions.Olorinish 21:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The important point is not what Encarta, American Heritage or Wiktionary say, but rather are there sources cited to support the statements in the article. And, I see, the source cited for that sentence does not mention 'persecution'. Now, you can be bold and removed 'perscution' from that sentence, and possibly irritate editors who have been involved in this article for a while (I'm not one of them, btw), or you can wait and see what other comments are made on this. -- Donald Albury 00:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I always thought the word holocaust related to large fires, such as the Coconut Grove fire. That is why I have a problem with this word. "Shoah" or "Pogrom" are much less confusing terms. Wallie 18:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Languages, including the meaning of words, keep changing. Economic downturns in the United States used to be called 'depressions', until the Great Depression. Now, the 'Great Depression' is often referred to simply as the Depression, and economic downturns since then are not called 'depressions'. Similarly, 'the Holocaust' was a holocaust so horrendous that it has largely preempted the use of the term for lesser tragedys. So, indeed, the Cocoanut Grove fire may well have been described as a 'holocaust' at the time, but I doubt The Station nightclub fire was called a 'holocaust' in news acounts when it occurred. 'Shoah' has entered the language as more or less a synonym for 'the Holocaust', although probably not as well known yet. Pogrom, however, still has a distinct meaning, and one that is useful to have. To me, anyway, 'pogrom' still denotes sporadic, often spontaneous (or, at least, not overtly led) violence against an ethnic group (primarily Jews). Pogoms, while often incited by government agents, do not have the bureaucratic organization and thoroughness of the Holocaust. -- Donald Albury 12:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Holocaust 

message: Is it possible to get the words in Hebrew and Yiddish alphabets to read right to left? At present they are written out backwards in the article, which could be misleading for anyone not familiar with the alphabets. I tried rearranging the letters but can't crack the system for writing Ivrit on WP. Smerus 21:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about simply enter them backwards in the keyboard so they'll display the right way around?  .siht ekiL  It's a horribly bad method but it might work.  Kasreyn 01:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  bizrrely , the only way I could correct these words was by copying them into Word, rearranging them and then pasting them back - but surely there is an easier way?--Smerus 08:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ivrit

message: The Holocaust page is currently a redirect to a disambiguation page. If nobody objects, I think it should redirect here, because The Holocaust is what most people mean when they say "holocaust," in my opinion. Thoughts? -- Where 02:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the disambig should be moved to Holocaust (disambiguation).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. I thought Holocaust redirected to The Holocaust in the past. On the disambig page this article is the third one listed after about two paragraphs of text. Since most users are probably looking for this article a redirect makes sense. GabrielF 03:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no opinion. I dont care either way, I initially changed it because I thought it would fit the wikipedia standard of keeping a neutral POV. It could be argued that not having it redirect to the disambiguation page makes it seem as though the Holocaust during WW2 was the only one worth making note of, not very neutral.64.230.27.94 06:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree - most disambiguation pages have a "most usual meaning"; that doesn't invalidate the other meanings. Edit the disambiguation page to put "The Holocaust" at the top if you wish, but people looking for other meanings should be able to find them easily too. Robina Fox 15:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Holocaust]] redirect 

message: Please see Holocaust Cruelty and it's talk page.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Holocaust Cruelty fork

message: I can't seem to find in the article an explanation of why did nazis go after Jews and other groups of people. Or why, for instance, they hated the communists. And why did they single out the Jews for extermination. This is not explained. Seems a little odd, that in 1933 they would suddenly one day start passing all kinds of exclusion and discriminatory laws. --xarm 05:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Causes of Hate 

message: This is incorrect. These so-called Polish Jews were in fact part of the USSR as of 17 September 1939. The part of Poland occupied by Germany contained 2 million Jews while the western Ukraine and western Byelorussia liberated by USSR contained 1 million. Out of 5.2 million Jews in USSR, 2.2 million died. Needless to say, the deaths of 2.2 million Soviet Jews is not any different from the deaths of tens of millions of Soviet Russians. Disproportionate emphasis upon Jews is insolent to those who receive considerably less attention like the 12 million killed Chinese. The "Holocaust" is purely a Zionist Jewish interpretation of World War II Jewry and is a fundamental violation of NPOV policy. The term "Holocaust" cannot be located in the Big Soviet Encyclopedia which reveals the inherently Jewish POV nature of the term "Holocaust". The Chinese don't talk about the "Holocaust" but instead focus on the horrors endured by the Japanese occupation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Peters (talk • contribs) 
"Western Ukraine and western Byelorussia liberated by USSR"? What are you talking about? The territories you refer to were part of Poland.  Poland was a soveriegn nation. The Nazis and the Soviet Union made a treaty with each other which allowed them to conquer and divide Poland; the Soviet Union continued to trade with and support the Nazis until the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union. Just because the Soviet Union was able to keep the Polish lands it conquered (because of its military strength and the unwillngness of Poland's allies to challenge it) does not make it right. The fact is that Jews were targeted for extermination by the Nazis simply because they were Jews, regardless of their nationality. The Soviets were unwilling to acknowledge that, and apparently you are still parroting their propaganda. If "The term "Holocaust" cannot be located in the Big Soviet Encyclopedia", does that mean it didn't happen?
Western Ukraine and Western Belorus were conquered by Poland in the Polish-Soviet war. They did not have a Polish majority in population, and, while the Commonwealth controlled those lands prior to partitions of Poland in XVIII century, before that they were part of the Ancient Rus. Ukrainians and Belorussians met the RKKA as liberators, which is illustrated well by minor casualties sustained by the Soviet Army - 1377 killed in action/died of wounds/missing (source: G.F. Krivosheev - Russia and USSR in wars of the XX century).  
I would have to agree with the statement that disproportionate emphsis upon Jews in not right. Sometimes one gets a notion that Jews were the only ones who died in the war. However, there is more. I think that we should mention of the connection between the Nazis and the Zionists. (source: Rabbi Moshe Shonfeld - Holocaust Victims Accuse). With respect, Ko Soi.
My previous comment, and the comments of several others arguing against anti-Semetic sentiment, have been deleted by vandals. This is what was deleted:
Excuse me, "a Zionist Jewish interpretation of World War II Jewry"? Anti-semitism[1] has no place in the wikipedia. The concept of "Neutrality" loses all reliability if taken to absurd extremes, such as allowing the "point of view" of anti-semites to be presented on wiki pages unopposed; such allowance gives their claims a certain credibility. Just because an organization supports a theory does not mean it is legitimate (the Flat Earth Society).
This was deleted as well as a comment by another who linked to an article about the soap made from human remains. Commantary is allowed to be POV to discuss the article before the sentiments become NPOV entries. STOP DELETING COMMENTS YOU DISAGREE WITH.
If anyone knows how to start a ban, and how to see who this person is who is vandalizing pages, please do both. --Natezomby 16:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 million Polish Jews 

message: Why isn't there a controversy section for this? Every other major topic on Wikipedia has a section for the controversies that have arisen over the years. The Holocaust has controversy in spades (the "soap" hoax, disputes over numbers, etc...) This is lacking.
:I agree. There is so much controversy over this subject, and even if we feel all of the arguments to be false, it isn't NPOV for us to not at the very least make a mention that some people legitimately believe it. The paragraph about holocaust denial could be moved to a controversy section. Having a controversy section is VERY important to have if we are to maintain a NPOV.
::Even if you are anonymous, please sign your comments.  The amount of controversy is so vast that it cannmot be accommodated by one article, so we have another article on it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Either create a seperate section in this article or a link to a full discussion in another article. JettaMann 18:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: How about we work on sourcing the sections we already have before adding more?  There are lots of ways this article can be improved.  Kasreyn 06:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Controversy Section 

message: This merge header appears to have been around since 17th June 2006 according to the history of the article International response to the Holocaust. It needs to be addressed by editors of this and the other article. Gnangarra
:*I cant see any reason to merge the two articles The Holocaust is already 106k, this article really needs to broken into smaller articles. Gnangarra 05:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge - [[International response to the Holocaust]] 

message: I've just semi-protected this article on a request from a user on IRC.  There has been multiple unique IP addresses vandalising the article today and none have positively contributed to the article.  Any administrator should feel free to unprotect it whenever he/she feels that semi-protection is no longer necessary hoopydinkConas tá tú? 16:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: Is there also a WikiProject made solely to highlight the advancements and positive influences that Aryans have had on the world in whole?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.174.126.110 (talk • contribs) .
:Well, there is Wikipedia:WikiProject Iran and Wikipedia:WikiProject India, but nothing I know of that covers Aryans as an entity. -- Donald Albury 01:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Jewish History 

message: I wonder whether it would be useful to gather together the information that is currently scattered in footnotes and other oblique references into a section that openly debates the question of which killings count as part of the "Holocaust". Footnote two currently says, 
:"Among the historians arguing that the Holocaust should refer only to Jews are Yehuda Baur and Guenter Levy. Those arguing the Holocaust includes Jews and Roma include Ian Hancock, Sybil Milton, and Donald Kendrick. Henry Friedlander argues that the definition should include Jews, Roma, and the handicapped. Richard Lukas and Ihor Karmenetsky include Poles among the Holocaust victims. Bodan Wytwycky includes Poles and Soviets. Richard Plant and F. Rector argue that homosexuals should be included, while Gunter Grau and Rodiger Lautmann argue against including gay men in the Holocaust." 
There is no further discussion of this debate. We don't learn why some authors think that the term should be restricted to Jews, or why homosexuals should be included or excluded. I mindful of the length problem, but concision and judicious moving of text should resolve that. If not, a new article could be created and linked to. I think there are several reasons why we should include this discussion. 
Reason one: Holocaust deniers are always claiming that Holocaust numbers are arbitrary, or are subject to constant inflation. We don't want to unwittingly support this by leaving unexplained the reasons why the numbers are sometimes given as 11 million, sometimes as 6 million etc. There has been a kind of "inflation", but that's due to a tendency to include an increasing variety of Nazi killings in the holocaust as such, rather than list them as separate war crimes.
Reason two:  We need to explain inconsistencies. The article currently lists victims in the opening, giving a number of Poles as follows "6 million killed, of whom 3 million were Catholic/Christian, and the rest Jewish". Later it states in a list of victims, "1.8 –1.9 million non-Jewish Poles (includes all those killed in executions or those that died in prisons, labor, and concentration camps, as well as civilians killed in the 1939 invasion and the 1944 Warsaw Uprising)." Clearly these figures don't match up. Also the latter figure includes in the category of "holocaust victims" all Poles killed in the 1939 war and the 1944 uprising. If we are to do that then we may as well include all victims of the bombing of London in the "holocaust". We have to make a distinction between victims of war and victims of murder. Failure to do so allows some contributors to make arguments like the following (from the Talk:Adolf Hitler page) "The number of victims as a result of World War II, are, according to a few versions, about 50 million, whether as a result of the war or of Hitler's crimes. Of these, 18 million were Germans. Among the victims of this war were Jews, like other members of the human race, but all of them should be considered victims of the Holocaust." (here the word "holocaust" seems to be used to mean "the disaster of WW2". It's unclear whether the writer wants to see Germans as victims of the Nazis, or to mitigate Nazi killings by including war-victims of the Allied action).
Reason three:  We need to be open about the fact that there is a distinction between war victims, war-crime victims and holocaust victims, but that these distinctions are not clear-cut. Are all people who died in concentration camps victims of the holocaust? Were the villagers of Lidice victims of the holocaust, or of a separate war-crime? What about Communists in Russia? By being open about the ambiguities we can explain why some writers want to say that only Jews were targeted for mass murder, and so are the only victims of the holocaust as such, while other victims suffered from separate Nazi war crimes. It also explains the debate about groups such as homosexuals. Since homosexuality was illegal elsewhere in Europe a case can be made that the Nazis were not unusual in criminalising it and that the deaths of homosexuals in the camps were not part of some campaign to physically eliminate "carriers" of homosexual identity, but were mostly the result of general brutality, disease etc in the camps. A discussion of the desire of certain groups to be included in the holocaust, to stress their victimhood, might also be included, as should the desire to stop the definition expanding to the point that all victims of the war are included. 
Sorry this comment is so long. Paul B 13:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers and groups included or excluded

message: Hey, I've just added the "This article is becoming very long" tag. I did this because i read the World War 2 article, and that was 110 kb and had the same tag on it. So I figured that since this article was 108kb long that maybe a very long tag should be put on it. Did i make the right decision, discuss? Ahadland 23:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Very long tag

message: --Greasysteve13 08:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we change the article so no headings are questions? 

message: The following comment has been moved from the article page. -- Donald Albury 20:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd certainly support the exclusion of this passage. The term "The Holocaust" is specifically used to refer to the systematic murders committed by the Nazis. Before that it was a non-specific word referring to any act of obliteration, especially ones involving burning. I have a collection of Freud's and Jung's letters published in the 70s in which the editor explains the paucity of Freud's letters by saying that he "made a holocaust of his papers". So even in the 70s it was clearly not perceived as word exclusively to be used to refer to mass-murder. It only became strongly associated with the Nazi crimes at the end of the 70s. Attempts to claim the term for other real or alleged genocides are essentially piggy-backing on the talismanic status given to the Nazi murders. Paul B 12:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We are conflating three simple issues and I do not see the need for any big deal.  First, "holocuast" originally and generically means a burnt offering.  When people say "The Holocaust" they are referring to the Nazi acts of genocide against Jews; prior to this usage the word was not applied to any genocide.  Since the emergence of genocide studies, the term has taken on a third set of usages, to describe the Romani holocaust etc.  This is what Paul was referring to when he talked about piggy-backing on the initial usage; he is right, and I do not see anything contentious with what he said.  This does not mean that the definition of the word has changed, just that the ways people use it have changed.  Clearly, this article focuses on the Holocaust as such.  No one is claiming that Jews "own" the holocaust, only that "the Holocaust" refers to a specific period in Jewish and european history.  Clearly, there should be links to articles on other genocides.  I think this is all paul was saying and it makes sense to me. It certainly is silly to "define" the word "holocaust" as "A morally monstrous act of genocide that is not only against the people themselves, but also a crime against humanity."  Isn't genocide always morally monstrous?  International law defines genocide as a cribe against humanity.  But the word here is "genocide," not holocaust.  Another word for "A morally monstrous act of genocide that is not only against the people themselves, but also a crime against humanity" is simply, well ... "genocide." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Certainly no-one is denying that these are terms in usage, and I don't see why they should not be linked. But there are good reasons why the word "holocaust" came to be used of the Nazi murders, reasons that make the term far less relevant to these other events. The meaning "obliterative physical destruction" applies to an event in which there was an attempt to systematically annihilate a whole people and to physically obliterate both the evidence and the bodies. What Freud did to his papers is in this sense the same as what the Nazis tried to do to the Jews - obliterate them entirely and cremate the remains. That's why this particular term seemed so appropriate. It's also why it's much less applicable to the other events you mention. The disambiguation page discusses some of these points. Paul B 08:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Holocaust

message: I have reverted a bunch of edits made by User:207.200.116.74 because they were unsourced, not necessarily relevant to this article, and difficult to sort out. While some of the edits might have been acceptable, it would have been very difficult and time-consuming to clean them up. This article is already overly long. It needs tightening up, not expanding. -- Donald Albury 10:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the edits' lacked essential resources, but you agree on some edits are historical facts. The one edit on the origin of Nazi anti-Semitism was not from Christianity, but originated from the far left isn't earth raveling. The P-C left has somehow exploited the holocaust to make the conservatives look bad. Of course, they aren't related to the Nazi political mindset, unlike the far right in Europe and the "white nationalists" shared these twisted ideas. Should I explore the issue and come back with a web link to demonstrate the edits' claims? I've found the connection between Nazism and paganism through the wikipedia articles on Germanic Neopaganism and the Thule Society, and what's the "anticlerical" anti-Semitism when the term means one who dislikes Christian clergy, be it Catholic or Protestant? I will check out the issue in details on some other time. I don't like when far leftists blame the moderate right and Christianity for the holocaust, but the Soviet Union's Communist party and extreme forms of Socialism in Europe expressed anti-Semitic opinion themselves. On wikipedia's Heinrich Himmler article, the prominent Nazi himself wasn't only anti-Semitic, but has vocally opposed Christianity and conservatism (i.e. capitalism) he viewed to be part of a Zionist conspiracy. + Mike D 26 16:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also to note the reverted edits on "other genocides" in history must go to the genocide article. The article had explained why historians compared the holocaust to officially declared 'genocides': The WWI-era Armenian and Herero, South Africa genocides, but edits on the United States government's treatment of Native Americans through warfare and removal as "genocide" is questionable, and the British naval blockade of food shipments to Ireland during the Irish Potato Famine suspected as a political advantage on the starving masses, are explained in their proper articles. For the past decade, there was much public attention on the lack of historical research of Imperial Japan's role in Asia. The  Japanese armed forces during WWII were involved in 'genocidal" or ethnic displacement campaigns against millions of Koreans and Chinese under Japanese occupation, plus in other East Asian occupied territories. This has an article of its own, so keep it out in this one. The holocaust is the primary discussion, and the other edit on involvement of Japanese, Italian and Spanish doctors in the Nazi concentration camps? I've heard of it myself, but where's the proof? Wikipedia is a place to collect and type information, everyone can edit ... but the rules are bring in truth (and to demonstrate the edit is truthful and useful), not trash! For a theory you want to share has exist, you have to examine and analyze, or it just remains a theory. + Mike D 26 16:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no British "naval blockade of food shipments to Ireland during the potato famine"! Anyway, this is about The Holocaust, not any other real or imagined genocides in  history. Paul B 17:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted edits by User:207.200.116.74 

message: This contribution was removed by User:EliasAlucard:
Anti-Semite teachings by the Catholic Church over centuries lead to the Holocaust of six million of God’s chosen people.
The Catholic Church directly caused the Holocaust by teaching its followers that the Jewish people killed Christ, which is not correct. Christ was killed by the Romans. Christ was a Jew.
Pope John Paul the Great went to Israel specifically to ask forgiveness of the Jewish people for the sins of the Catholic Church where he kissed the ground at the Holocaust memorial.
I would be pleased if you would explain you reasons. --WikiCats 21:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are your sources for those edits? -- Donald Albury 21:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Moreover, are you forgetting that Germany was almost universally Protestant until after WWII? I don't think the Catholic Church is blameless. It should be obvious that any Anti-Semitic organisation, the Church of the day included, shares in responsibility. That said, blaming them piecemeal is just plain silly. The Vatican of the day is no more or less responsible than any other Anti-Semitic institution. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 00:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Almost universally Protestant"? Something like a third Catholic, I think is more like it -- and the Catholic part is where Naziism was born. That being said, WikiCat's edits are inappropriate. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Show them here. -- Donald Albury 22:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The cause of the Holocaust 

message: You have to explain which kind of concentration camps were Giado (for Jews) and Arbe (for Slovenians and also Jews). In Giado the conditions were horrible. In Arbe may be 7,000 people starved to death. This did happen in 1942-1943 before the Italian surrender.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.144.149.84 (talk • contribs) .
:Give us a reliable source and we can see how it fits in. -- Donald Albury 16:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Rab concentration camp is a start. For the other, do a web search for "giado libya jews" and you'll find some discussions of it; neither are very well known, though. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE  ITALIAN  CONCENTRATION CAMPS  OF GIADO (LIBYA) AND ARBE (RAB) 

message: This article says nothing about Switzerland's refusal to allow Jewish refugees entry, or the Swiss banks' obstruction of efforts by the families of holocaust victims to retrieve funds deposited by their relatives.  I don't know much about this topic, so I won't edit the article myself, but maybe someone here would like to take a stab at it. --Slashme 12:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Switzerland and the Holocaust 

message: Re-added the 80 to 200,000 Freemasons "airbrushed" out of this History. Generic Character 18:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freemasons 

message: Is it accurate to say that "In France, the Vichy government, a puppet government put in place after the German Invasion of France, led by Philippe Pétain...", particularly the phrase "put in place after the German Invasion of France"?  In reality, the government was in place *before* the French surrender and Philippe Pétain was also in power before the surrender.  The phrasing of the sentence gives the impression that Germans forced the French government out of power and replaced with an all new regime.  That's not what happened.  How about the following change, "In France, the Vichy government, which effectively became a puppet government after the German Invasion of France, led by Philippe Pétain..."?  Or since this is an article about the Holocaust and not Vichy France, how about simply, "In France, the Vichy government led by Philippe Pétain..."?
:Yes, latter is best. Vichy was not installed by Hitler. Paul B 20:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But...it doesn't say "put in place after France surrendered to Germany", it says "put in place after the German invasion". I won't argue the "put in place" part, but Pétain came to power a month after the invasion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it could be made clearer that Petain was able to replace Reynaud as premier after Paris had fallen to the Germans because of a general mood of defeatism in the country and the government, and Petain, who was pro-Nazi, then asked the Germans for terms. The Germans did not install Petain, but he served their purposes very well. -- Donald Albury 13:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vichy France 

message: Hey there. I nominated the article for a second time for featured article status. People appear to be objecting, although very reluctantly. It is clear from the posts I've read that wikipedians see the Holocaust as a very important topic which deserves FA status, however, the people assessing the article have made some suggestions on how to improve thw article. I will make a list of these suggestions as below, and when they have been completed, hopefully The Holocaust will be a featured article.
* Object: Not ready for FA. I wouldn't even approve it as GA because it has a merge tag, inconsistent ref formatting, external jumps, and citation needed tags. I didn't get to reading it. It is also 110K long. Suggest consider splitting some off into sub articles. Lead is too long, it should summarize the article without going into lots of details. Rlevse 01:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Article Second Attempt

message: Why do seemingly reasonably people and Parliamentarians, get worked up because someone has stood up and denied something? I am a Christian but if someone says they do not believe, I just wish they believed but I do not victimise the person. Bringing out an array of weapons against someone just because he has said he does not believe sort of makes the one who believes just a bully and nothing more. You do not advance anything by targetting those who do not see your point of view. 
So what is the reaiul problem? Eleanor Chibwe is a hobby writer 23:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What exactly is Denial

message: I just created the article 2006 Iran Holocaust Conference and was hoping some people here would help me by fleshing it out. It is a bit of a stub at the moment. Maybe a link to this confrence could be added to this page too!! Thanks!Sup dudes?User:Kitler005 17:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2006 Iran Holocaust Conference]] 

message: Please vote 69.156.78.50 22:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_23#Category:Anti-Semitic_people Vote]

message: i think it would also be an interesting addition about some of the inaction of the aliies in saving refugees from the nazis. for example the fact that the aliies could have repeatedly bombed auswitch, yet refrained from doing so while bombing an oil refinery not 5 miles away. or the fact that the us state department threw up many bureaucratical obstacles in saving jews.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.154.36.248 (talk • contribs) 
:Bombing Auschwitz would certainly not have "saved" the Jews. The point about the US state department is indeed relevant, but the article is already 115 kb long--perhaps such information would be best placed in a different article? Justin Eiler 14:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already an Auschwitz bombing debate article. However, it could well be improved. Paul B 00:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually Eisenhower did not want to waste US and British lives for either Patton or Montgommery's greater "glory" when the zones of occupation had already been determined. None of this has much relevance to saving concentration camp inmates. Paul B 00:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the western front had pretty much collapsed and Patton's tanks were not being refueled even before the zones of occupation had been established. Eisenhower was slowing down the Western Allied advance on purpose. The sell-out at Yalta was disgusting considering FDR was giving the Soviets control of the very area that Hitler had given him as part of the deal to start WWII. And, yes, this issue does have relevance to saving concentration camp inmates since that's what we're talking about. Jtpaladin 17:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  inaction in saving jews by allies 

message: The image text for the picture at the top of the article, showing selection of Hungarian Jews, says that it is taken at Auschwitz camp. Actually, the photo is from Birkenau (Auschwitz II). Also, "the entrance to the main camp", which is visible in the background, is actually the entrance to Birkenau, seen from the inside. The term "main camp" is a bit ambiguous - the leadership of the Auschwitz complex resided at Auschwitz I, which would make that the "main camp", but Birkenau (Auschwitz II) was the camp where most Jews were killed.
I think the image description should be reworked in accordance with this -- I can't do it myself since the page is semi-protected. More details about the Auschwitz camp system are in the article Auschwitz concentration camp. 193.217.242.140 01:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image text 

message: Someone above asked if the section heading that are questions (i.e. Who was directly involved in the mass murder?) could be rewritten. I'd like to re-make that request - these sound kind of childish, and definitely un-encyclopediac. I would just go ahead and rewrite them, but would like suggestions about what they should be instead. Also, it might be time to archive again. Natalie 16:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  section headings 

message: Holocaust and half-truths.
To those who understand that the holocaust did exist, there is a political manipulation of this in terms of half-truths.
A Mr. Weinberg, a Jewish survivor of the Holocaust, told me as he showed me his numbered tatoo, that the Holocaust involved many other people besides Jews; political opponents and others.
While the modern day Holocust is normally viewed as a only Jewish experience we should appreciate that this involved people from many other countries as well.
To those who understand the deceptive nature of true yet false half-truths, we should appreciate that the Holocaust was part of the second world war and in terms of loss of life, the Russians and Germans suffered the most.
The explotation of victimization, throught the use of half-truths and related half-truth logic, or black and white generalized logic is polarizing to humanity.
War is a crime against humanity !
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust and half-truths. 

message: I'd like to propose to change something in the wording in the 3rd paragraph, about Holocasut victims. In the 2nd sentence it reads: "Roma & Sinti (also known as Gypsies)". Both Roma and Sinti can not be classsified as 'Gypsies'. Some Gypsies are Roma and Sinti, but not all Roma and/or Sinti are Gypsies. So I'd like to change it to: "Roma, Sinti and Gypsies" instead. WietsE 21:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=93673274 WietsE 21:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't understand you. What is your definition of gyspy? Paul B 10:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From my understanding Gypsie is a slang term used to describe a large amount of people.  Roma, Sinti, yes, but also Irish Travellers or even Lyuli.  But this means that every Roma and Sinti is a Gypsie but not every Gypsie is a Roma or Sinti.  Therefore the current wording seems alright to me. Disco 10:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was bemused by the claim that "not all Roma and Sinti are gypsies". Of course Gypsy is used loosely for many people who adopt an itinerant lifestyle, but I don't think that's relevant here - it would be like saying "not all bohemians come from central Europe" becasue Parisian artists were referred to as "bohemians". Paul B 11:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing of wording in Paragraph 3: Victims 

message: I propose to make a section "Holocaust Chronology." The we'd compose a chronological list of events that took place during Holocost. And link each event to the article about it. What do you think ?
Igoruha 22:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chronology

message: The word "holocaustum" appears in reference to the expulsion of Jews from Britain in the late 12th century by Edward I, am currently trying to find an internet source for this (original source is Simon Schama's "A History of Britain").82.5.217.129 13:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it would be of any help, here is what Etymology Dictionary says on that topic:
"c.1250, "sacrifice by fire, burnt offering," from Gk. holokauston, neut. of holokaustos "burned whole," from holos "whole" (see safe (adj.)) + kaustos, verbal adj. of kaiein "to burn." Originally a Bible word for "burnt offerings," given wider sense of "massacre, destruction of a large number of persons" from 1833" -Igoruha 12:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name Etymology

message: Can anybody help? Or point me in the direction where I might find help? When I look at the hist of edits for this page, I find that a number of edits are not picked up by my watchlist? Responses can be posted on my talk page.
Thanks Joel Mc 07:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Open 'My preferences' at the top of the browser page, then click on the 'Watchlist' tab and make sure none of the boxes there are checked. -- Donald Albury 02:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for you reply, I only saw today.  None of the boxes were/are checked, yet I seem to have the same problem.  Am I alone?Joel Mc 20:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with discrepencies between my watchlist and history of edits

message: Listing those people in a sentence with major war criminals is grossly inappropriate. None of them ever was in a position to take part in, nor did do, the Holocaust.  All three were members of some party affiliated group basically to just get along.
There have been real ugly political battles in Europe over this. Someone is setlling scores here.
I suggest at least to give it a seperate heading and note their actual status. Wefa 04:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waldheim, Filbinger, Kiesinger, Koch and Grese 

message: '''
"Some scholars do not include the Nazi persecution of all of these groups in the definition of the Holocaust, rather limiting the Holocaust to the genocide of the Jews. However, taking into account all minority groups, the total death toll rises considerably; estimates generally place the total number of Holocaust victims at 9 to 11 million, though some estimates have been as high as 26 million.[2]"'''
Nearly ALL scholars count the Jews as well as Roma, Sinti, Jehovah's and all other groups covered under the definition of genocide.  I thought this was established.  Also, I thought it was established on this page already we would need decent sources to claim Russian POW's etc. Disco 11:18, 18 December 2006 
"...as civilians killed in the 1939 invasion and the 1944 Warsaw Uprising)"
Okay, but as the source says, these people were victims of the Nazi regime not the holocaust.  " Subtracting 3 million Polish Jewish victims, the report claimed 3 million non-Jewish victims of the Nazi terror, including civilian and military casualties of war."  - This is not the Holocaust.
Half the facts in here are about victims of war rather than the holocaust. Disco 11:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems 

message: Let me just say this: the only bias this article has is towards the truth.
There is an overwhelming body of evidence testifying to the Holocaust; it is probably one of the most documented events in history. Any person considering the Holocaust to be a "hoax" or a "lie" is required to suspend all rational thought. I suggest that this talk page not be used for trying to convince people. I respect that the people working tirelessly to try and prove the Holocaust to its deniers on this page have the best of intentions and only want to help. But you can only help someone to change if they want to change.
No amount of evidence is going to be enough for these people, it will all be faked. They have it set in their minds that the Holocaust never happened, and therefore anything that contradicts them is obviously faked or misrepresented. These are people who have passed beyond the realm of rational, logical thought.
About the article:
Here's the deal: the Holocaust happened. That is a fact. It is not an opinion and, according to the US courts, it is a matter of historical record and is not open for any kind of serious debate.
I respect that everyone is trying to follow the Neutrality policy; but I wish to caution against being too accomodating and politically correct. I mean, if I want to suddenly claim that Bill Clinton was actually assasinated in 1995, and his cousin has been filling in for him ever since, that's my right. But it doesn't mean that all of a sudden the Clinton article should be expanded to include "it is noted that there is a possibility that Clinton was actually killed in 1995" or that the article should start referring to him as the "alleged" BIll Clinton. Just because there is a controversy doesn't mean that there is a legitimate claim to be presented side-by-side the truth.
I'm not attacking anyone; I feel that you guys have done a great job keeping the Holocaust page balanced. I'm just saying, don't try to overbalance.Phoenix Song 17:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About the article's supposed bias