Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 14

message: 12 million people died in the NAZI bastards persecution of Romani and Jews during WW2 other races people were also persecuted and exterminated. How dare you downplay the holocaust like it was something that only happened to jews when everybody knows that more Roma people than jews were killed in WW2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 10:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MadeinFinland, this is patent nonsense. Your ranting is blatantly racist. Dinlo juk 13:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Like we are all equal here, never heard that before? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 21:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  6 million? It was 12 million 

message: This article is currently up for for good article review. When consensus is reached editors will decide whether to list it as a good article, if you have read and understand the criteria feel free to comment here. Quadzilla99 17:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is LONG, it somehow needs to be split into sub-sections, it is under that criteria right now, isn't it? 69.158.74.118 01:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Good article review|Good article review]]

message: *
This is what the British govt considers 'The Holocaust' to be. It is also the held position of many scholars along with the public. Think Ownership needs to be addressed up top. Alexsanderson83 21:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ludicrously PC. That's an example of how bad these "inclusive" lists can be. How many "black Germans" were victims? I suggest the author reads Susan Samples, "African Germans in the Third Reich" in The African German Experience. Paul B 21:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  *Imperial War Museum - the victims of 'The Holocaust'
*- people —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexsanderson83 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: That's right. Mixed race offspiring of French Senegalese occupying troops in the Rhineland were sterilised. Other mixed race children outside the Rhineland were unaffected. No-one was murdered. Hardly a 'holocaust' by any meaningful use of the word. Statistically, as Samples shows, African-Germans had a higher chance of surviving than white "Aryan" Germans, because they were not enlisted. BTW, Hilter does not say it was a Jewish plot. He says it was a French plot, because the French had become a "negrified" people, apparently. Paul B 22:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Holocaust memorial

message: The entire second section was a copyvio, apparently taken word-for-word from the Encyclopaedia Britannica here, unless they took it from us, which I doubt. The writing was POV and a bit too elaborate for Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Compare the link above with this. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It was added by  on April 9.  SlimVirgin (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The same user had made, somewhat worryingly, 91 edits to this article. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violation

message: I've trying to start a copy edit, but MadeinFinland keeps reverting from under me, so I can't make any progress. Please stop it. It's causing a lot of confusion, because I'm making further changes to sections without realizing that the first changes are gone, so the refs are getting messed up too. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As all MadeinFinland seems to be doing is removing ref tags so that the footnotes in the lead become part of the text, I'm going to regard it as vandalism, and I'm going to override the edit conflicts. MF, if you want to make a serious edit, please wait until the copy edit is finished. I'm only going to do a bit more. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MadeinFinland

message: For those who are not aware, the inuse tag means an editor is currently involved in overhauling the article. As a courtesy to the editor cleaning up this poorly structured and poorly written article, please allow the edits to be completed so you can see the final product. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  inuse tag 

message: There's a formatting problem after section 4, so that 4.1 etc aren't indented in the toc. I moved a section that was indented properly to that same place in the article, and the indenting broke, as those it's location-dependent, which is weird. Can anyone see how to fix it? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: Does anyone think this should be moved to Holocaust (without the definite article)? We do tend to avoid it in article names (see The Doctor, The Master, The Joker (see WP:NCD). I think it would be a controversial move, though, I'm seeing what others think on the subject. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 16:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already been discussed. See archive here Talk:The_Holocaust/Archive_13#Requested_move. Paul B 16:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. Thanks, didn't know of that. Will (is it can be time for messages now plz?) 17:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to [[Holocaust]]? 

message: This article used to be so well written. Now someone try to downplay what happened to Romani people as well as other races during WW2. More Romani were exterminated in % than Jews just so you know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MadeinFinland (talk • contribs) 20:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MF, there is now a new separate section on the Roma, and another new section on the definition issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  12 Million died in the HOLOCAUST 

message: I think we are missing a section that describes the background to the Holocaust and puts it into perspective. As it is, we get right into the who, when, how, and what, but we are very short on the why. 
After all, the Holocaust was a culmination of centuries of antisemitism and pogroms. And the antisemitism was not limited to Europe. As background, in the US in 1939, a Roper poll found that only 39% of Americans felt that Jews should be treated like other people, 53% percent believed that "Jews are different and should be restricted" and 10% believed that Jews should be deported.
The Évian Conference in 1938, "failed to pass even a resolution condemning German treatment of the Jews, a fact that was widely used in Nazi propaganda. The lack of action further emboldened Hitler, proving to him that no country had the moral fortitude to oppose Nazism's assault on European Jewry." (quoting WP)
As another example, the saga of the Voyage of the Damned further proved to Hitler that the West or the Allies would do little to oppose him on the "Jewish Question".
So clearly there was background, building up over the centuries, and the humiliation Germany suffered after WWI, coupled with the economic and social distress that followed, were more ingredients that led to the 'why'.
As of now, I cannot find any of this here, although I am sure it is strewn in bits and pieces over many entries. I think this is really needed to paint a more complete picture. I am sure there is no shortage of sources, and much of the material is already in other entries. Comments? Crum375 01:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good idea. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing section and perspective 

message: The new version is a vast improvement. It is easier to read, better organized, and without being able to point to anything in particular, feels more 'authoritative' or 'encyclopedic.'
:Thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The headers are really just place holders until a better structure starts to suggest itself. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I was intending to make clear that most councils did cooperate. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, I'll take a look shortly. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article is much better following all the work put in. I would also venture to say it is less offensive to the minority groups who were also part of the Holocaust. 86.149.209.189 16:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version 

message: I decided to cross check the death toll numbers for the major extermination camps, and used the WP List of Nazi German concentration camps as my reference. I discovered major discrepancies all over - between that list and the numbers in our list here, and in that list I found missing sources, and varying sources. I discovered that the Yadvashem source appears to be the most reliable and consistent compared to the others, so I started using it to update the list article and add the references. Then I updated the Holocaust list numbers also. I invite anyone to please cross-check me or find better i.e. more consistent and/or reliable sources. I do think that procedurally we need to focus on the list article and then copy the numbers here. Thanks, Crum375 03:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The important thing is to find one authoritative source for the numbers and then use only that source, (and note the source in a footnote after the figure) because they use different methodologies, so if we mix and match sources, we'll end up with an original-research mess. Discrepancies can be noted in footnotes. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree fully. As of now, the most reliable and consistent source I could find is the Yadvashem source, per above. I have reviewed all the listed camps, and updated their numbers on both the list article and here, per above. I also added a Talk note in the list article. As of now, we have consistency here in two ways: 1. by being consistent with Yadvashem, and 2. by deriving all numbers from the WP list article. There is one caveat - for Auschwitz the Yadvashem document only gives a number for total Jews, not total persons, and that is 1M. The Auschwitz site source in Poland, which is also excellent, gives a range of 1.1M to 1.5M for total persons, which is consistent with the Yadvashem numbers. Since the Holocaust numbers are in 'best estimate' and not in range form, I took an average between the 1.1 and 1.5 to arrive at 1.3M. This is the only number which is not directly from the Yadvashem source. BTW, the Yadvashem gives the Jews killed as approx. 80% of total, so the 1.3M total per 1M Jews is consistent with that also. Any critiques and/or crosschecks are more than welcome. Crum375 04:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to rely less on the WP list article and try to be more self sufficient. Given that these numbers are almost all based on the Yad Vashem source, I added that as source.  The remaining issue is the Auschwitz numbers, which I'm working on resolving. Crum375 04:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Best not to use WP as a source for anything, especially not figures. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - that list page doesn't seem very active. I now resolved the Auschwitz issue, with a new link on the Yad Vashem site and a footnote explanation. Crum375 05:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I decided to use individual references. It looks a little cluttered aesthetically, so it may require footnotes instead of external links. Crum375 06:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, for both Janenovac and Maly Trostinets, as well as all the others in our major extermination camp list, see the above Yad Vashem links that we now also provide in the article. All these documents are in English. Crum375 12:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: Slash, can you say why you keep changing the formatting of the other links?  SlimVirgin (talk) 03:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: After the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) a great number of Spanish Republicans went to exile in different European countries. Many were politically active ranging from socialists, to communists, to anarchists. After the fall of France, many Spanish Republicans were sent to concentration camps, notably Mauthausen-Gusen (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauthausen-Gusen_concentration_camp). See also the special badge "S" (Republikanische Spanier, Republican Spanish) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camp_badges
The number of Spaniards that died in concentration are of the order of 10,000. So, I'd like to make a mention of this in the "3.2 Non-Jewish victims" section of the main article. 
David Wingeate Pike, Emeritus Distinguished Professor of History, The American University of Paris, published 
"Spaniards in the Holocaust: Mauthausen, the Horror on the Danube" (ISBN-10: 0415227801) in 2000 analyzing the topic. 
The site In http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Mauthausen/KZMauthausen/History/SpanishRepublicans.html mentions "23,400 Spanish prisoners were registered at Mauthausen and its subcamps and that 16,310 of them died, leaving around 9,200 survivors." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.9.208.189 (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for providing the information and a source. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added Spanish POWs to the table. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Prisioners: Spanish Republicans  

message: Think this wants altering to give an understanding to why some people say 6 and the other will say 12. It should address this issue rather than when the word was first uttered. 86.149.209.189 16:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: i was wondering, did hitler kill off those who had brown hair and eyes (such as himself)? i was wantin to know if that's true. 168.103.247.124 19:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No of course not. That was shown as an ideal, yes, but if you look his most loyal followers had brown hair and brown eyes. Blonde hair and blue eyes is just a sign of purity, and an image they could fight for. --Hayden5650 19:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well it's true that he killed off himself. See Nordic theory for a discussion of relevance of the "blond-blue-eyed" concept. Paul B 14:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  blond hair, blue eyes. 

message: I have always wondered what data the six million figure is based on.  Now I just heard that the death toll for Auschwitz has officially been revised down to 1.5 million from 4 million.  How does this affect the figure of 6 million total murdered in the Holocaust? Is it now 3.5 million?  How is this figure arrived at? Amity150 05:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could try reading the article. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a lot of variability, and the exact figures will never be known. But it would help if you could find verifiable sources that could be used in the article. Thanks, Crum375 13:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still six million ?? 

message: The two sides of the Holocaust debate are largely focused on the numbers issue; it is six million or is it (up to) twelve. Holocaust Deniers are rightfully seen as abhorrent self-deluding individuals who would do we would do well to shut up. However, would to deny that Gypsies gassed upon arrival, non-Jewish children, women, etc being killed on arrival and that they do not deserve to be included in some peoples definition of the Holocaust, is that not a bastardised form of 'Holocaust Denial' or selective denial. 86.149.209.189 12:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To above anon-IPs: Wikipedia is all about WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Your above discussion is engagement in WP:OR, which is not useful. If you have a source saying X, then please provide it, let's decide if it's verifiable and reliable, let's see where it fits in context and in the overall balance, and then we can possibly use it. Thanks, Crum375 12:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think you really should stick to specific verifiable sources and what they said. Thanks, Crum375 13:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Think you probably wouldn't get arrested in Austria for it. Although (maybe) an original thought, it certainly does make for an interesting look into the eyes of those who wish to keep it a Jewish event, and the diachotomy of bashing those who reject the Holocaust in its entirety. Londo06 15:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this the bastard child of Holocaust Denial

message: The map showing mass deportations of Jews contains a number of errors. The concentration camp in Bohemia called Theresienstadt is labelled Thrasenstate. I don't know who the cartographer is but there are numerous boundary errors too (e.g. Luxemburg is left outside the Reich and the Austrian parts of the Sudetenland have been detatched from Ostmark). (Landau7 17:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theresienstadt 

message: Someone changed gays to homosexuals in the header, saying that gay is offensive as a noun, but I see it as the other way round. Here are some articles by Peter Tatchell, well-known gay rights campaigner in the UK.  In them, he uses gay as a noun and adjective, and queer e.g. here.  He uses homosexual as an adjective too, though I couldn't find him using it as a noun. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: not a policy, but worth a read: User:Hyacinth/Style_guide. --Coroebus 17:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no policy. The alleged offense is in the subtle difference between gay and gays. It's been discussed on the gay page before. The problem is that any word can be deemed offensive to some. We should avoid terms like LGBT here though, because this was primarily about homosexual men. Paul B 17:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about 'gay men', which is what the relevant section says, and, while we're at it, I would argue for 'disabled people'. --Coroebus 17:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Gay men" is fine, because it was gay men only who were persecuted, so far as I know. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers.  Any views on 'the disabled' vs. 'disabled people'? --Coroebus 18:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think that adding "people" after these designations suggests there is something wrong with being X, as in people thinking they need to say "Jewish person" rather than "Jew." We talk about the mentally ill, the disabled, the persecuted, the oppressed, and so on. It's more a question of the writing than anything else, and we really can't be following Guardian style guides on Wikipedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reasoning, at least in the case of people with disabilities, is to avoid stereotyping people by their problems, so they are 'people with disabilities', or 'disabled people', rather than 'the disabled' (or 'the mentally ill').  Maybe it is a cultural thing, cos I wouldn't talk about 'Jews' or 'the Jews' either.  With regard to style guides, there are often good reasons why they say what they say, as here. --Coroebus 18:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that is that the addition of "people" to X actually emphasises the idea that there might be something wrong with being X. There's an organisation called the English Collective of Prostitutes which insists on using the phrase "prostitute women" instead of prostitutes. Try that with nurses (nurse women) or any other profession (lawyer people). The need to add "people" automatically implies that X might not be people. "they killed the disabled" should be no different from, "they killed the lawyers". Can you imagine writing "they killed the lawyer people" or "they killed the people who are lawyers"? Paul B 19:08, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly right. People who insist on writing "Jewish people" are actually being offensive without realizing it. Coroebus, it's just the addition of one word, so if you feel very strongly about it, I'm not going to oppose you, but I'd rather we just said "the disabled," because it's better writing. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict)In the case of 'the disabled', I think it is rather implicit in the name that there is 'something wrong'.  Many of these sorts of groups choose to assert 'X people' because of the pre-existing negative connotations of X (cf. spastic), while I understand your point most groups have advocated for the 'X people' formulation, which is why style guides adhere to it - and ultimately people tend to choose what the group themselves want to be called.  So if you work in my field, you do not go around calling people 'the disabled', or 'schizophrenics', or 'the mentally ill', because they will not be impressed, much as black people don't like being called colored. --Coroebus 19:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But they do want to be called Blacks, I believe, not "black people." But as I said, I won't oppose so long as it doesn't make the writing look odd. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I say, I think this is a national thing, 'Black people' would be the preferred form in the UK, with 'Blacks' regarded as a bit funny, with just that wiff of racism. --Coroebus 19:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You changed even though consensus was against you. Paul B 09:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, SlimVirgin said she didn't mind, that only leaves you that's commented so I hardly opposed consensus.  Both you and SV are arguing based on idiosyncratic normative arguments, I've based my edit on what, in my experience, are the generally preferred terms (by the groups involved, and the media) in accordance with my local customs (i.e. the UK).  These may differ from your (US?) customs, but I have not as yet seen evidence for that, and I note that the American Medical Association says: "Avoid labeling (and thus equating) people with their disabilities or diseases (eg, the blind, schizophrenics, epileptics). Intead, put the person first.”1(p268) Intead of referring to diabetics, refer to persons with diabetes; the disabled and persons with disabilities."  --Coroebus 10:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most people disagreed, but could not be bothered arguing about it. I think the AMA position is entirely illogical, but never mind. I am British. Paul B 11:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  What a load of Politically Correct nonsense. Please keep the PC crap out of wikipedia. --Hayden5650 11:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict)Um, how do you know if they didn't say?  If you're British then your usage differs from the Govt, BBC, Guardian/Observer and most disability associations.  Like I say, idiosyncratic. We have an article on this (List of disability-related terms with negative connotations,and a guideline on identity: "Almost always use terms as adjectives rather than nouns, thus, black people, not blacks; gay people, not gays, and so on. Note that there may be exceptions to this rule: for example, some prefer the term "transgenders" to the term "transgendered people."")   --Coroebus 11:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously I meant most people who commented. Style guides are no guarrantee of logic. Paul B 11:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But only you, me, and SV commented! You can't have a consensus on 2/3. --Coroebus 11:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Five users have commented in this section. Admittedly one was anmonymous and one is the lovable Hayden. It's is a trivial point, but the fact is that you arethe one insisting contrary to other commentators. Paul B 11:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Hayden only commented after your claim I'd violated consensus (i.e. before this argument), and the IP didn't exactly make their view clear, which leaves you, me, and SV.  Looks like Hayden has found the relevant guideline! --Coroebus 11:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Well that PC load of bollocks of naming conventions actually clears this up in my favor. It says homosexual is acceptable in historical context which is what this is. --Hayden5650 11:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I changed it to "Homosexuals" because based on what I've read it wasn't just gay men who were persecuted during the holocaust. []Wikidudeman (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it back, before you'd finish posting that comment, actually.  While a few lesbians were picked up, there was no organized effort against them, and (in fact) the Nazi-era laws specified gay men and made no reference to women.  Some have hypothesized that the Nazis were barely even aware of lesbianism.  See  --Aquillion 08:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think it should be "homosexuals" since there were indeed some persecutions of lesbians. The link you posted is the like I referenced which says that some lesbians were persecuted.Wikidudeman (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some did die in the Holocaust, yes, but this was almost always because they were a member of some other group that was targeted.  They were persecuted in other ways, but there was no specific, organized effort to exterminate them as there was with gay men or the other groups mentioned; lesbianism was, in fact, not criminalized.  See also  or our own article on Black Triangle.  The topic might be worth covering in more detail (I notice even our article on History of homosexual people in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust makes only a passing mention of Lesbians) but it should be made clear that gay men, in particular, were one of the groups targeted for extermination. --Aquillion 09:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no attempt to exteminate gay men either. The claim that "gay men" were "targeted for extemination" is not supported by the evidence. We have to be as precise as possible. Homosexuality was a criminal offence, but homosexuals were not treated as a "race" deserving of elimination, rather they were treated as sexual criminals and were victimised and abused in the camps because of that. Paul B 10:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gays

message: All of the images are on one side. Some of the images need to be moved to the left side of the article.--Sefringle 06:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way you're moving things is messing up the formatting, at least with my browser. You've also put one image on the left where the faces are looking out of the text now. Images should face into the text. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Though the images are almost all on the right side. Some of them should be on the left as well, and maybe we should delete some of them, as the article has  too many images. In some sections it is distracting to the text.--Sefringle 06:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's more distracting to the text to have the reader's eye jump from left to right and back again. It's particularly distracting to have images that face to the left placed on the left of the article, because then they're looking away from the text, and the reader's eye is drawn that way. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's in the process of a rewrite, Sefringle, so there's not much point in changing image locations, because it's not finished. There's text to be added still, sections may still be moved, then the whole thing has to be carefully sourced, and the writing tightened. Still quite a lot of work ahead. The Wansee conference images are laid out like that on purpose to show the evolution from the Wannsee Conference room to the corpses. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should add the rewrite template to the top of the page then to clarify to readers who are just comming to this page that the article is in the process of being re-writtten. I came to this article, and was just shocked by the massive amount of images here. The excessive amount of images detracts from the text. These further information boxes are also a little too full. Some of the material should be moved to the "see also" section. It seems like someone put every possible link they could think of related to the holocaust into this article. --Sefringle 06:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: A long list of see-alsos means they won't get looked at. By breaking them up and putting them in sections, they're more more relevant to readers. I don't agree about there being too many images. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I printed this out recently to check out the image placement, and I showed the printed version to a professional publisher. It looks good, and the publisher remarked on how well-laid out it looked. Large clumps of text aren't read by people. They need things to break it up: images, large quotes, see-alsos in different colored boxes. That's why I added them. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It just seems from my computer like there are just too many images. I have never seen an article on wikipedia laid out like this one.--Sefringle 03:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: As most people probably recognize Nazi as the more notable term, we should use Nazi to describe the German regime, rather than National Socialist regime.--Sefringle 06:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consnsus has been to use the word Nazi party. "Nazi" is not in itself comparable to words like "nigger". It is only an insult because of what the Nazis did, nnot because it was coined as such. 09:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Nazi article it is, in fact, a derogatory way to refer to the National Socialist Party, but I hardly think we need spare their feelings. --Coroebus 10:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slightly, yes, like many other such shorthand terms, but it is by far the established usage in English. Simon Schama recently cvlaimed that Churchill's pronunciation Naaasi was deliberately derogatory. It's diffucult to really know. Paul B 11:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The argument here would be that it is universal usage to refer to the NSDAP as the Nazis now, and that it doesn't convey the same implications in English that it might have in German. --Coroebus 11:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hayden, we agreed on gay men and disabled people as a compromise. It's a small point, so would you mind leaving it for the sake of stability? SlimVirgin (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "National Socialist" vs Nazi

message: I tried to improve & simplify it and make it more consistent with other WP articles. I suggest we use wiki rather than html syntax, and reserve  for quotations rather than . ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure yet who did it, but the formatting got all messed up. The images ended up in ugly boxes, after they looked just great. I hope no one makes any formatting related changes without carefully verifying the effects in Preview - the visuals and graphics here are no less important than the text. Thanks, Crum375 13:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for causing trouble. It looked better in my browser/display resolution. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting  

message: In your list of Axis powers, you forget to mention that Iraq  in 1941, after a pro-Nazi coup, joined the Axis, as did the Arab in Palestine, led by the pro-Nazi Mufti--Herut 17:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a generic WWII issue, and should probably be discussed here. Crum375 22:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq and the Palestinian Arabs 

message: Hi, you know the picture with the corpses and stuff, is that really nessecary? I find it really disturbing and i think a lot of other people probably do as well. maybe do you think we could put a warning or something? thanks. Jimmyswift 03:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimmy, it's a disturbing topic, and it's important to report it and show it as it occurred. I'm not sure about the issue of a warning at the top of the page. I've not seen it before, but it's worth investigating. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Hayden5650, I think if we start adding warning messages we'll go down a very slippery slope. Crum375 01:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: My articles have often been criticised of not having enough original sources. After reading through this article I have yet to see one piece of evidence that isn't second-hand from a holocaust historian. Where are the original sources? Is there even the name of one witness provided in this article? Saying something is one thing, it actually being correct is another. If a historian is incorrect and then another historian quotes him, this does not make the original claim any more correct! Individual claims need individual references! --Delos 03:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is still a work-in-progress. There are lots of sources available, both online and in print, both secondary and primary. As far as primary sources,  beyond the ones we already cite, there are a lot of witness statements are stored on the Yad Vashem sites, but there are also other sites and lots of books that quote witnesses and documents. If I may suggest, if you feel that some primary sources are missing, please help by finding them and adding them in. Thanks, Crum375 00:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of original sources

message: I am puzzled that [Jayjg] deleted the paras that I inserted yesterday with the comment: (the article is already quite long; these sections are very short, and all based on one article. They should probably be incorporated in another way).  I would agree that the sections are quite short, but I believe informative.  Perhaps two of the sections, condemnation by birth and totality could be combined.  I realize that the article long which is one of the reasons that I inserted small sections.  Clearly the points belong in the Distinctive features section, add important new distinctions. It is not based at all on one article, the reference is to a well-known book which includes many references.  I added the speech so that someone who does not have access to the book could read a summary of the points.  I do not believe that these are adequate grounds for deleting the paras which were painfully posted using a slow connection as I am in the depths of France at the moment.Joel Mc 07:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your material has been worked into this section. Hope that's okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for sorting this out.Joel Mc 15:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of paras in Distinctive features section

message: Could people please stop pissing around moving the photos you're really screwing up the article. They all belong on the right hand side. --Hayden5650 10:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted your changes because they are introducing ugly looking boxes around the images. As I noted above, the visual effects and graphics in this article are no less important than the text, and we should make an effort to preserve or improve them. Please use the Preview function to check the effects of your edits before saving. Thanks, Crum375 11:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Photographs don't "all belong on the right hand side". On the contrary, they should be on both sides, and inserted with an eye to visual interest. Jayjg (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Every time the images are moved or the formatting changed, the page gets messed up, text ends up on top of images, references get broken, or images are moved away from the text they refer to. As the article is still being written, it would make more sense to wait until a first draft is done, then make suggestions about the formatting on talk if it's not considered good enough. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who keeps screwing with the photos?

message: Sefringle, what is your problem exactly? You've been told that the article is undergoing a rewrite. This isn't something that can happen overnight. We're adding some text, removing other text, adding images, adding sources. What exactly is the point of adding huge amounts of citation needed tags, and tagging the entire article, even though it already has 127 separate footnotes? You're asking for a source for "In all Nazi camps there were very high death rates as a result of starvation, disease and exhaustion, but only the extermination camps were designed specifically for mass killing," when the entire section on the Wannsee Conference explains that those camps were set up for the purpose of mass murder, and it explains why.
It's not a helpful contribution. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin, I recently tagged this article in places where sources were missing. Why did you revert it?--Sefringle 06:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disruptive editing

message: the beginning of the section now reads, in part "During 1942, in addition to Auschwitz, five other camps were designated as extermination camps (Vernichtungslager) for the carrying out of the Reinhard plan." My understanding is that only 4, Auschwitz + the 3 new ones, were Aktion Reinhard camps. Can the "designated as extermination camps" be sourced or, if it cannot be, can it be reworded? Jd2718 12:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that Chelmno is the only one of the 5 that is not mentioned in the Yad Vashem source as part of the AR camps, so I added the AR source and a footnote for Chelmno. Crum375 02:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extermination Camps 

message: The old article was showing quite well where there is controversy on aspects of the Holocaust, heck, it was even showing the mixed views within German officials. The current article is very streamlined - like copied from the pages of a middle school textbook. Simplification is okay for teaching an introductory lesson but a historic record should convey the complexity as it occurred in reality - where there is no single answer on the motivations and where actions had various side effects allowing the horror not to unfold linearly. An encyclopedia is a good point of reference to all those further reading parts - please don't make them just footnotes or even subject to the "search" button. Have a heart and put some complexity back in, thanks, Guidod 22:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous version was a horror story of bad writing, bad sources, and plagiarism. What were the mixed views of German officials that you're referring to? Please provide link to that part of the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complex things are not simple 

message: Could a link be placed somewhere in the article to associate it with Holocaust denial? Discgolfrules 21:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that i agree with this in anyway.  In fact i find the arguments absurd, but i think there should be a sub-section  on this page about Holocaust denial for the interest of NPOV, and more.  Similar things are found on most pages with some controversy.  There are many who believe it didn't happen and perpetuate it.  To ignore this would be to not only cause problems with NPOV but would also cover the theory i secrecy.  The big lie was a large part of the holocaust, making it too horrible to believe.  This has still carried on to this day.  Projects like http://www.holocaust-history.org/ work to disprove the holocaust deniers, rather than just ignoring them.  So i really think it should be more than just a small link. (one i didn't even see when looking for it).  So make a brief description of their claims and link to the larger page.  and then have a section for documentation of it holocaust and programs and project that have the goal of recording evidence for no one to forget ZyMOS 05:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a section on Holocaust denial before the major rewrite earlier this month. A small subsection on this topic would be appropriate (along with a more prominent link to the main Holocaust denial article) - although it's a fringe view, it is arguably too much of a hot potato to omit mentioning it here at all. 217.155.20.163 18:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust Denial 

message: I had added a subtitle to the Roma section, thus changing the title to "Roma (Gypsies)".  North Americans refer to Roma very frequently as Gypsies, and the term is not generally derogatory when used as such.  I did kindly notice that an individual who appears to be a British contributor removed the subtitle.  I respect his copious, quality edits, but I do kindly ask him and the Wikipedia community to reconsider the subtitle removal; if you say "Roma" to a NoAm (in the sense of referring to this people), he/she likely won't know what you are talking about without further explanation/references.  Yet, I realize that Roma is the "educated" term for this people.  Further debate and discussion welcomed (I did not revert the aforementioned revert, btw).  —Catdude 05:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say there's a whole issue around the Roma, Gypsy, Traveller conflation (in Ireland and the UK at least), which is one of the reasons why people will avoid the word 'Gypsy'. --Coroebus 10:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Romani scholars I've been reading for this article say Gypsy is considered very derogatory, so I removed it, except from the quotes. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roma subtitled as Gypsies 

message: Neutral reader, skimming the article for the first time in some time. In the following paragraph under "Definition", I am curious/desiring clarification (albeit not necessarily saying the article needs it):
The word "holocaust" is also used in a wider sense to describe other actions of the Nazi regime. These include the killing of around half a million Roma and Sinti, the deaths of several million Soviet prisoners of war, the killing of the intelligentsia, slave laborers, gays, Jehovah's Witnesses, the disabled, and political opponents.
Just wondering who the 'intelligentsia' were in this context and why they were killed. (I do know the definition of the word.) I guess I've never run across this one before, or it's just not clicking with anything I've read previously. Possible overlap with 'political opponents'? Again, just my own curiousity. --Thessaly 02:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Intelligentsia" 

message: The main thing about Croats killing Serbs, it was not even part of Holocaust, but of the then-even-more savage Balkan ethnic conflict. Sure, they killed the Jews too - but so did the German-supported Serbs (in turn, the communists exterminated Axis and former Axis civilians later). Hitler did not want Serbs exterminated, or even just Serbs in Croatia, more then he wanted the French. 
This is like if the Polish victims of the Polish-Ukrainian ethnic conflict (some Ukrainian formations were German-supported or even run, including SS) were the victims of Holocaust - no one does this. I believe the Serbs should be excluded, as they were not the victims of the Nazi racial policy. But as for now: Discuss. --HanzoHattori 17:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbs 

message: Jackanapes, your new section mixes up rescuers with resistance, going back and forth without a connecting narrative, and repeating material that's in other sections. The article is too long to get into rescuers and collaborators, which is why both were moved to other pages. It's best to leave this page for the core Holocaust issues. The longest FA is 121 kilobytes, and we're already at 120 (not that I'm saying this is ready for FA status, and I'll be surprised if it ever gets there, but it's good to use those standards as a guide). SlimVirgin (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jackanapes, please concentrate issues related to this article on this Talk page, since spreading it to individual editors' Talk pages will make it difficult for others to follow the discussion. Specifically here, this article is already very long. Its central topic is the core of the Holocaust, which is the systematic annihilation of 6 million Jews, most of Europe's Jewry, as well as some other groups, like the Roma. There are many secondary topics, like the ongoing world war, the occupation of many European countries, the post Holocaust analysis and denial, the way various nations acted in relation to the Holocaust, the historical background, and so on. These are very extensive topics and deserve a complete treatment. There is no way we can cram them all into the main article within a FA-like size constraint, while doing a fair presentation of the issues and facts. If you have facts that you think are pertinent and well sourced about the related topics, please update their sub-pages first, where there is much less space constraint. When all the sub-pages are optimized, we can always decide to add summaries from their leads here if needed. That there are sub-articles for existing sections doesn't mean those are optimized - the article is already too long, needs to be reduced, and there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. I hope this makes it clearer. Thanks, Crum375 14:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Jackanapes, I don't understand your claim that having no section on rescuers somehow makes this article "biassed". I can't see that such a section is necessary. As for your other point, yes, there are sections here that are expanded elsewhere. That's how these articles work. Subjects that require both inclusion and a more detailed have longer separate articles. Paul B 15:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rescuers

message: I submitted a post earlier this evening correcting the story of the medical experiment performed on the twins sewn back-to-back.  The ending of the account in the article is incorrect.  Eyewitness testimony from the War Crimes Trials indicates that the twins died of gargarene and were not euthanized with morphine.  Someone deleted my scholarly post, calling it "vandalism" simply because I did not create an account.  I posted my email address in the event the article is updated so I can provide a bibilographical reference for my source materials.  However, instead of actually READING my post, this other user simply deleted it because I prefer to have the system automatically submit my IP address instead of using my account name.  This is my right and I find this other person's actions both inappropriate and a deliberate hindrance to correcting serious errors in the article.  Email: metalmuse@juno.com  DO NOT DELETE THIS POST.  The article as stated is incorrect.  If you're the author, then grow up and admit you made a mistake instead of trying to delete submissions requesting correction.  The Holocaust is too important a topic to have historical errors propagated on a popular site like Wikipedia.
:We have a source for the material. If you have a better one, by all means give a reference here and we can look at it. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The post was deleted automatically because a pop-up signalled it as vandalism (due to the redirect sign at the top). It had nothing to do with an attempt to censor you. I'm sure no-one intends to downplay the criminality of the event. It would be best if you posted the relevant passage and page references to your source here, rather than email them to individual editors. The information regarding the morphine comes from the testimony of Vera Alexander, reported in Gutman, Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp, 1994, p.324. "The wounds were filthy and they festered. There was a powerful stench of gangrene.  The children screamed all night long.  Somehow their mother managed to get hold of morphine and put an end to their suffering". Paul B 05:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MEDICAL EXPERIMENT 

message: Er... I don't want to accuse anyone of Holocaust denial here, but 3 million Catholics died in the Holocaust, last I checked. I don't see any mention of this at all on this page, though I could swear it was here six months ago. -- Kendrick7talk 04:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never even heard of that before, (I'm not denying it). But I think the term Holocaust really applies to the euthanasia of Jews. Something like 50,000,000 people died in WW2, from many groups, so they can't all be lumped under the term 'Holocaust', doing so would make Holocaust too vague a term as a result. --Hayden5650 05:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always understood the term Holocaust to mean people systematically killed by the Nazis, though a term like Shoah I might interpret as Jew-specific since it's a Jewish/Yiddish word (Er... I think, I mean it redirects here.) Sure, lots of people died, how shall I say, extemporaneously on account of WWII (my grandfather was in the Pacific theater and proud of every one, God rest his soul). But I get the feeling some neo-Nazis pulled a fast one on this article; I'll have to dig through the muck and try to restore this. I'd be happy with just a passing mention even though it's only one third. -- Kendrick7talk 06:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Catholics were not systematically killed by the Nazis because they were Catholic. Paul B 09:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Supposedly he is part Jewish... how ironic.
Celtic Emperor 18:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this functionalism versus intentionalism? -- Kendrick7talk 04:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not really. That's about how the holocaust came about. The point is that the term Holocaust is invariably used to refer to the killing of Jews, and very commonly used to refer to the killing of gypsies, since both groups were eliminated simply for being who they were, though the killings of gypsies were far less systematic than the killings of Jews. No one was eliminated simply for being a Catholic. Indeed many members of the Nazi state were Catholics, including a bloke called Hitler. Of course his Catholicism was purely nominal, but he was nonetheless a member of the church, as were a many millions of people in the population of the Third Reich. Paul B 09:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Half of the people killed in The Holocause were Jews. Of course, there is a significant population of the other half (including Catholics), but "The Holocaust" is not synonymous with anyone killed during WWII. Is anyone even reading this article?
Celtic Emperor 21:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hitler was born in a Catholic area of southern Germany. His parents were Catholic. He was a member of the Church, but only nominally. However he stated  "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." (John Toland, Adolf Hitler, New York: Anchor Publishing, 1992, p. 507). Paul B 10:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was under the impression Hitler was never confirmed, so he wasn't a full member of the Church as an adult (i.e. he would never had taken communion either). His biological father was Catholic, as was his mother, but no one is "born" Catholic; it's not clear (from what's on wikipedia) what religion his step-father was. Not that it's that important; Stalin, by comparison, almost became a priest. -- Kendrick7talk 18:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said he was born in Catholic area, not that he was "born" as a Catholic. But that's irrelevant pedantry. Yes he was bapitsed and, I think, confirmed. I'm not sure what step-father you are referring to. Paul B 18:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, yes I misread you, and yes Hitler was confirmed. This is why I never edit articles related to Catholicism -- there are all these things I think I know, but when I check an RS I'm proven dumb. -- Kendrick7talk 19:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholics?? 

message: Shouldn't it point directly to Nazi concentration camps rather than the generic concentration camp article?
:Please sign your message with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. And yes, I agree and made the changes. Crum375 13:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Concentration Camps" link