Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 16

message: In one part of the article it is stated that 600,000 people were killed in Jasenovac, most of them ethnic Serbs, but it is not mentioned in the introduction, even though some other groups (e.g., Freemasons, with far less victims) are mentioned. I would put it in, but i can't because of the lock. Also, these other groups are discussed in separate paragraphs, and there is only a link to an article about genocide of Serbs. 89.216.191.247 23:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that Croat-on-Serb war crimes are not the same as Nazi planned murders. Paul B 00:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serb victims? 

message: Kurt Waldheim died today, another victim of the campaign to paint all Nazis as mass-murderers.  Even Simon Wiesenthal went to bat for Kurt, at great risk to his reputation and standing in the community.  I think what happened to Waldheim and Wiesenthal has a lot of similarities to to how the Berenbaum citation is being used (twice) in this article to paint all of Germany as part of mass murder.  Keeping in mind Berenbaum thinks the Nazis were "absolute evil" I'm wondering if some of this isn't an attack on nationalism itself, or an attempt to punish the Germans in particular and make it impossible for them to have or express ethnic pride.  Just my two cents.  Anyway, requiescat in pace.  Fourdee 03:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you ever been to Germany? They don't have much of a problem expressing national pride. Paul B 17:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "the campaign to paint all Nazis as mass-murderers" There has to be some sort of Wikipage where talk page classics like this can reign in splendor. Gzuckier 18:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kurt Waldheim 

message: At the end of the "Climax" section there is a line in particular that states:
"Few people realized that for Hitler and Himmler killing the Jews was more important than winning the war."
I feel statements like this are biased and not based on any actual cited evidence from both Hitler and Himmler.
(EvanBittle 17:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure it's bias, but it certainly uncited speculation. One could equally argue that with the war all-but lost bar a miracle, eliminating Jews and other "threats" to the Nordic Race was the next-best use of resources given Nazi ideology. Paul B 17:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jews more important than War 

message: Paul, you're reverting to a version that isn't so well-written with the claim that it's factually inaccurate. Can you say exactly what the inaccuracies are? Version below. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are resorting to your usual empty assertion that your version is "better written". Well, that's a meaningless statement. As for the factual inaccuracies, these have been discussed in detail on this page over several days. You have contributed nothing whatever to that discussion. Paul B 23:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current version (which I did not write) is better written, and the onus is on you to show what is factually incorrect. I've looked through the page and can't see anything, so please say here. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not repeat what is already written in detail in the section on 'extension of the word'. Paul B 23:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell me again, copy and paste it, or give me a diff. Or else leave the section as it is. As for your claim about my "usual empty assertion" about the writing, here is before the rewrite, and here after. People can judge for themselves how empty my assertions are. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So you can't even bother to read a section on this page, and becuase of that I have to leave your version alone? What bizarre interpretation of policy is that? Paul B 00:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual inaccuracy

message: Is it realy topical to mention the other 'holocausts' on this artical's page? The Maafa has it's own page. Creating a catagory for 'Historic holocausts and genosides' may be a good way sorting this out. Remember Gengis Khan and Julius Cǣcer were no pasafists! The holocaust is the gratest peek of human brutalaty since Gengis destroyed Chin Bajing.
Who suports creating {catagory:Historic holocausts and genosides}?--Freetown 01:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the way this is currently handled  is appropriate. The fact that other events are sometimes called holocausts is undeniable and is an important thing to consider in this topic. There is no need to go into it in great detail of course and we currently don't Nil Einne 16:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New catagories

message: I'd just like to point out, as a gypsy, that it is quite offensive to me to say that "The Holocaust... is the term generally used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews during World War II".  Though the primary target, the holocaust was much more than a campaign to kill jews.  Our textbooks, our vernacular, is all geared toward the belief that the holocaust was only about the jews.  You can go so far as to ask people, and there will be people who do not even know that the holocaust involved groups other than jews.  The opening paragraph needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaark (talk • contribs) 
:You've just explained yourself why our lead is written as it is. At Wikipedia, we don't add our own opinions; we report only what reliable sources report. As you said yourself, most of the textbooks and scholarly studies view the Holocaust as the genocide of the European Jews, so our lead reflects that. But we do explain this in the article, and we give details of other groups who were the victims of German genocide. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 23:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, all the textbooks I've seen in California describe the Holocaust as the systematic Nazi extermination of eleven million people, six million of whom were Jews. The other five million consisted of Gypsies, gays, handicapped, Free Masons, etc.--71.108.56.95 00:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Textbooks change annually, often based on political whims. All we can do at WP is to collect the best possible sources, which for historical events would be publications by respected scholars and historians, and summarize their views in a balanced fashion. If you read the lead and the Definition sections, you'll notice that we specifically address the issue of which groups are included in 'the Holocaust'. Crum375 00:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV again 

message: I have removed the exhumation image (with a mistaken edit comment) because we are over our size budget and I don't think it adds that much to the article. However, I am open minded, and other comments are welcome. Crum375 15:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exhumation image 

message: Woah.  That is a screenshot of a Wikipedia page which exists at The War Against the Jews.  The table would be big, but I think a screenshot of a table is a bad idea.  What should we do?  Also, can someone get the citation of the page number?  The refernece is only to the book, which, is very incomplete.  Thanks. gren グレン 19:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:The War Against the JewsTable.png]] 

message: "togther" isn't a word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.203.235.207 (talk • contribs) 
:Thank you. Crum375 20:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: The statistic of 9 to 11 million killed in the Holocaust, as cited by this  article's introduction, is a low estimate by even the most conservative of standards. As the footnote suggests, the figure is likely well over 12 million. Does anyone else agree that this statistic should be changed? I can cite plenty of sources that would put the death toll much higher. Notecardforfree 08:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Death Toll

message: Do you think Odessa Holocaust is a proper title? Please take a look at Talk:Odessa massacre#Odessa Holocaust. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper title for Odessa massacre 

message: "Jewish failure to resist the Holocaust" - this is simply wrong thing to say. Martin Gilbert wrote: "In every ghetto, in every deportation train, in every labor camp, even in the death camps, the will to resist was strong, and took many forms." That entire paragraph looks like a POV editorial on the modern politics. IMHO, it should be rewritten along the lines of Jewish resistance during the Holocaust#Types of resistance and JEWISH RESISTANCE (USHMM). ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced it with a relevant quote and a few refs. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first para in [[The Holocaust#Jewish resistance]] 

message: Someone is keen to continue inclduing the Serbs killed by the Croats into the victims of the Holocaust. They're in the infobox, they're in the article, which I thought is about "the killing of approximately six million European Jews during World War II (...) [and] other groups were persecuted and killed by the regime." Serbs were not targeted by the Germans as a nation - in fact, there was a Serbian fascist state (something along the Vichy France, only more vicious - and yeah, the article is bad, so you'd have to read further elsewhere) through the war, just as was the Croatian one (complete with the Serbia's SS legion of the Serbisches Freilligen Korps, etc).
It's roughly on the same scale as would be including the Polish-Ukrainian conflict in the occupied Ukraine and Poland (including things like Massacres of Poles in Volhynia), or maybe the crimes of the Soviet Union 1939-41 - I think this is just silly, and it's also annoying. But you know Yugoslavia, and you should also know how they falsify history and how, like Associated Press said this, "Casualty figures from other conflicts in the region, especially during World War II, were often manipulated by politicians, and statistics and death tolls were used to justify attacks against other ethnic or religious groups" (and I don't think Wikipedia is a place for this).
Also, what do you think about the article of Holocaust victims? I think maybe most of the summaries would be moved there (and further edited), and here only a short list with some commentary and the links to the main articles (like Porajmos for the Roma) - something like this, I'm not sure how it would be done, just sayin'. --HanzoHattori 09:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Serbs (again) and other notes about the victims 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=147418152&oldid=147417108
What I wrote already. Oddities removed, various things corrected, some (important) stuff actually added but the article's smaller anyway. Can we have oh-consesus now? --HanzoHattori 09:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect to gaining consensus, you've got my support. --Hayden5650 09:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Hey, HanzoHattori, thanks for stepping up to the plate, reverting your own edits, and coming here to discuss this!  Awesome!  It's a great display of Wikipedia editors working together in a collaborative way to make our project better!  I am sorry I didn't respond sooner, but my real life took over after my last edit..had to go to bed, get some sleep and then work today.  Give me a little time to digest all this stuff, and hopefully we can move this thing forward to everyone's satisfaction!  I am so glad to see this kind of cooperative editing!– Dreadstar † 21:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Okay so

message: What I'd like to try, is to set up a sandbox where we can collect and discuss the elements of the disputed content for this article.  We can discuss there, while not clutering this page with all the many posts I expect we'll have!  Hope this is ok with everyone!
The sandbox is ready, please follow the format I've layed out.  If there are any issues or problems with it, let know and I'll fix it!
*The Holocaust disputed content sandbox.
– Dreadstar † 01:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what now when there's no discussion? Reaching consensus otherwise, I guess. SV is against my changes but won't tell which exactly and why, and Hayden5650 is appeareantly supporting me after all. You? --HanzoHattori 06:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, and also: I don't think "my" Auschwitz bombing debate is actually really, REALLY needed. It wasn't in the original version, and it's not in mine - it's just the main article of International response to the Holocaust (instead of the usual random-link flood of Évian Conference, Bermuda Conference, International response to the Holocaust, Voyage of the Damned, Struma.). I just mentioned this in the quite silly subject of detailing D-Day (including the spam-link list of the Normandy beaches) in the article about the Holocaust. --HanzoHattori 06:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Just to remind, the changes are here (plus Warsaw correction). --HanzoHattori 06:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus as far as I can tell.  I believe the lack of discussion may be due to the fact that some of the disputants were away for the weekend.  We still need to reach consensus for the changes to the article you've proposed.  I've responded to your statements about this process in more detail on the sandbox page (thanks for the feedback, btw!).  If you truly believe we have consensus for your changes, let me know and we'll move on to the next step.  – Dreadstar † 06:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no consensus for these changes. I can't even see the point of most of them. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 10:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For WHAT and why? --HanzoHattori 18:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, I call for calm and patience.  Even now I am going through the changes in the diff you presented with your proposed changes.  The sheer number of changes in that diff are quite remarkable.  It is going to take me a while to gather, format and present them in the sandbox.  Then we can look at each proposed change individually to see if we can all agree on what to include.  – Dreadstar † 18:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Content dispute

message: There should be something written about the positive effects of the Holocaust for the Jews. For example, after thousands of years of persecution from all countries in the world, including England and America, these countries and the rest of Europe would dare not put a foot wrong when discussing Jews, and persecution of any notable scale has been relegated to some backwater 3rd World Countries which the US Army could quite easily take care of, should the need arise. --Hayden5650 10:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Positive? Ther is still anti-Semitism in these countries and it wasn't the Holocaust in which everyone decided to just stop hating Jews for no particular reason. Reginmund 22:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The King or Queen of England is hardly going to get away with expelling them all from Britain though, now are they? There's 'racism' in every country, but the Holocaust brought an end to 'state sanctioned racism'. You might say the Holocaust made the world a safer place for Jews --Hayden5650 00:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mm-hm. Well, find some reliable sources that say that. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I wonder why the Eichmann's lawyeres didn't try "But there were also positive effects" line of defense. --HanzoHattori 06:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Would they get away with expelling any other race? NO. Not in a democracy like the U.K.. Compare to most European countries, Jews have had actually little persecution in Britain. I don't understand why you are singling them out from all other minority groups. They are as just as vunerable. One would assume because of your previous extremist POV pushing, you are just looking for an excuse to say that the Holocaust was a good thing. Reginmund 23:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Young Haydie, "may" is a weasel word which if left unsourced, implies original research. Two things not allowed here. Oxygen may be harmful to mammals since it carries hostile bacteria. Maybe we should imply that oxygen is a bad occurence in the atmosphere. BTW, "Reggie" is an incorrect shortening of "Reginmund" as "Reginmund" is the cognate of my given name, Raymond. "Reggie" on the other hand is short for "Reginald". Reginmund 01:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hayden5650, I consider your behavior uncivil and ask you to proceed - only if you have verifiable reliable sources - with extreme caution. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Positive Effects of the Holocaust for Jews

message: I have finished scanning the disputed diff and placed the significant edits on the Sandbox page.  There are sections for each segment of the diff, and a comment subsection for each.  Keep the discussions there short and civil, and focused only on content.  I will refactor any comments placed inappropriately on that page.  Let me know if you have any questions.  I will be notifiying the list of disputants shortly.  – Dreadstar † 01:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Holocaust dispute diff

message: (Original note removed by author; let it stay removed.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the sources cited in notes 24-30. 15:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. The article discusses the number of Jewish victims, showing the various estimates by reputable mainstream scholars and experts, along with their variability. If you have an equivalent high quality scholarly source that you believe can significantly add to that section, by all means add it. Crum375 15:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah. I should have read the article. --Richard 15:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  6 million 

message: Can be at least the completely non-conteroversional edits implemented? or do i have top explain why Chelmno link instead of Chelmno extermination camp is wrong? Geez, people. --HanzoHattori 07:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Okay

message: :Category:Holocaust in popular culture is up for possible merging or renaming.
This category is being considered for merging into :Category:The Holocaust in accordance with Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Categories for Discussion policies. This does not mean that any of the articles in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the Categories for Discussion page.
Cgingold 23:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cfd for Category:Holocaust in popular culture 

message: See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/HanzoHattori.
I initiated this user-conduct RfC on August 3 because of problems with HanzoHattori & another user that we'd been having on Battle of Washita River. Thanks to an article RfC I also initiated, our problems with the Washita article seem to be mostly taken care of; but comments from other users responding to HanzoHattori's RfC showed that other people besides us were experiencing some of the same problems on other articles, most especially this one.  Today someone suggested that his & the other RfCs were "only" about the Washita article. So I wrote a plenty long response which refutes that view, including a detailed history of the recent disputes at The Holocaust, to which I am an outsider.  But perhaps those of you who have been part of the disputes here, or who simply wish to continue work on the article but can't because its fully protected, might care to take a look at the RfC and comment.
I also suggested there that we found our article RfC to be immensely helpful in getting the Washita article back to where we could edit again.  Perhaps people here might consider doing the same.
Best wishes. --Yksin 00:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  User-conduct RfC & disputes on Holocaust article 

message: I archived a big chunk to Talk:The_Holocaust/Archive 16, feel free to move any still 'live' conversations back or add more of the above to it.  I basically left the 'protection' conversation on down, and archived the most recent soapy, troll-y stuff..;0  Dreadstar † 07:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You removed some good material dealing with the core problems on this article.  -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 11:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's tons of good material in the sixteen archives. That's one of the downsides to this flat-text discussion format. --15:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: I've had the article protected to stop the edit warring over the disputed content being added by User:HanzoHattori.  Hanzo, I suggest that you stop trying to revert to the massive changes involved in that single diff, and to present any changes you would like to see made in the article.  That diff is not acceptable.  I advise going slowly and adding material in a manner that other editors can easily see and view your changes. Your edit summaries continue to be uninformative.  This style of editing has been objected to several times and it must cease.  There is no consensus for your changes, SlimVirgin and I have both objected to your changes.  – Dreadstar † 19:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You? I discussed with you, you stopped objecting and asked for "next step" (no one else joined). You revert to the version which claims Jasenovac was an extermination camp (it wasn't), and Chełmno extermination camp is linked as Chelmno (click them!). And so on. It's just a badly made article. The only thing I thought was above average was the quotes (well done, unlike awkard ones in the Arkan and Iwo Jima articles I removed), and I was impressed by the section about the overall responsibility of Germany, not just the folks in SS and police (een if there's mentioned "government transport offices arranged the trains for deportation to the camps", but not the Deutsche Reichsbahn itself - needs a cleanup and interlinking, too). --HanzoHattori 19:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to re-read what I wrote, I did not 'stop objecting' and give consensus.  Since no consensus was reached, I asked you what you thought the next step should be.  I was hoping you would opt for my suggestion to make small edits, slowly implemented, with clear edit summaries; instead you chose to continue your edit war.  I don't think reverting back to the version containing your massive and disputed changes is appropriate and I oppose it completely.  I suggest you find another way, perhaps taking it up the chain.  – Dreadstar † 19:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is disputed? Okay, you guy may have all the homosexuals you want in the intro. Yay. I'd go and insert this NOW, but no, protected. So no yay. Anything else? --HanzoHattori 20:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You will need to propose any changes you want to make to the article.  Merely re-citing the disputed diff or any other diffs is not appropriate.  The article is too long and the diffs are too massive to easily review.  I also think comments such as the above stretch WP:CIV, and make it more difficult to gain the cooperation of other editors.  – Dreadstar † 20:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Dreadstar, for slowing this thing down.  This is the second time I had to wade my way through a huge number of small edits, done seconds apart.  It is not conducive to a reflective response. --Joel Mc 20:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This seems to a problem with parsing English. "best kown" is acting a single adjective here (it's not the best one we know, but the one we know best). I'll add a hyphen to make this obvious. --Stephan Schulz 13:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or "most well-known" or "most infamous" ? They are a bit awkward, though. Jd2718 15:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder about the point of saying one atrocity is better known than others.  If there is a point, it might be worded as "most widely known" or "most notorious".  Wanderer57 17:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article protected

message: The "Climax" section (perhaps an unfortunate choice of words as well--please think these things through) contains no citations sourcing its content even though it purports to provide a quotation (that is, in an actual "quotation box") of Himmler's which comes "closer than ever before to stating explicitly that he was intent on exterminating the Jews of Europe". It seems to me that the assertions made in the section are significant and need to be cited or else this constitutes OR. Further anything in quotation marks, especially anything that has been translated from a foreign language and so is not a strict quotation, warrants special attribution. The footnote numeration jumps from 138 to 141 on either end of this section, so I'm not sure if there was some kind of editing error here. I'd like to throw in a "citation needed" flag but, alas, the administrators in their wisdom have locked the article. Perhaps one of them, SlimVirgin for example, could flag the section on my behalf.
:The article is locked, but in the meanwhile, here are some sources for Himmler's Posen speech:
:*holocaust-history.org
:*historyplace.com
:*nizkor.org
:* nationalsozialismus.de (German)
:*Yad Vashem
:*ess.uwe.ac.uk
:Crum375 23:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: SlimVirgin and Crum have been re-adding the D-Day material without consensus. Thoughtful comments are receiving "I like it" responses. Please, if anyone has reasons to keep the D-Day stuff, share it. Otherwise we need to keep it out. Jd2718 02:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's there to help orient people regarding the timeline, and how as the Allies were moving in, the Germans were still deporting people to Auschwitz. If you want to add material about the advances from the east, please do so, but there's no need to remove what's already there. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've sourced the connection between the two. I've also changed your section heading here to one more in line with WP:CIVIL. Do you have any further objections to the material? Jayjg (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Scanning this discussion, (a month later) I find only Crum's essentially "I like it" argument and SV's tenuous "timeline" arguments in favor, and a wide consensus to delete the material. Jd2718 01:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's pretty weak and out of place. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus regarding D-Day material

message: I archived a big chunk to Talk:The_Holocaust/Archive 16, feel free to move any still 'live' conversations back or add more of the above to it.  I basically left the 'protection' conversation on down, and archived the most recent soapy, troll-y stuff..;0  Dreadstar † 07:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: This page cites 1.4 million dead, but if you click on the link to the Auschwitz page they cite 1.1 million dead in the comprehensive introduction. Now I am well aware that these numbers are individual historian's estimates, but I feel that in the interests of coherence (i.e. it's a bit messy to have different numbers cited in different articles in wikipedia), that there are two possible remedies:
1. use the same numbers in all articles (but which ones?)
2. present the numbers as a range, e.g. 1.1-1.4 million. This would again create the problem of which sources to range, but given that one is using a larger sample this would seem to give improved veracity. Additionally, this would impress upon readers that these numbers have been arrived at in different ways.
As a provisional suggestion, I would think that the range should be from the low conservative estimates (which are often based on what can be ascertained through direct records), and the slightly larger estimates, but which are equally valid, that employ for example pre and post war population statistics and eyewitness accounts/admissions e.g. Eichmann's.
If this seems sensible it would seem that it could be taken as a convention for numbers cited in Holocaust articles, although in some parts this is already the case. Comments?
Tsop 07:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presenting the numbers as a range seems like a good option to me, but it's not a matter I'm terribly knowledgeable  about. I generally just watch this page for vandalism and racist POV pushing. ornis (t) 08:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of dead at Auschwitz

message: The definition of Holocaust should include all people, not just Jews. It is largely Jewish scholars that omit everyone else. It appears this is solely because the rest don't really matter to them. --Salom Khalitun 20:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does mention the diverse victims of the Holocaust.  Political prisoners, Jehovah's Witnesses, and homosexuals were sent to concentration camps as punishment.  Members of these three groups were not targeted, as were Jews and Gypsies, for systematic murder.  Nevertheless, many died in the camps from starvation, disease, exhaustion, and brutal treatment.- Gilliam 20:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do wonder if Mr. Khalitun read as far as the second paragraph of the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see the second paragraph and the list of other peoples, yet the definition of Holocaust in this article refers to Jews, largely because Jewish writers are only concerned about the Jewish victims. That is as racist as the Nazi perpetrators of the Holocaust. If the massacre of Jews is called the Holocaust, what is the massacre of non-Jews called ? Is there really no name for the murder of so many people. --Salom Khalitun 01:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody has provided any opposing reasoning. According to Wikipedia guidelines there is therefore consensus. Anyone who wants to restrict the Holocaust to only Jews, when so millions of others suffered the same fate, is being racist and heartless anyway. --Salom Khalitun 14:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "last man standing theory" of discussion does not work. Consensus about what? If you read the article, we do not define Holocaust - in fact, I would claim that it is not the task of an encyclopedia to define anything. We describe how the term is used, and have two very reliable sources for the current lead sentence. We also immediately mention the non-Jewish victims in the next sentence. Your edit has a number of problem. It drops the references from the first sentence, it omits some other information, and it contains the (mis-)leading and unsourced phrase "Jewish scholars do not ..." when what they allegedly do is neither universal among Jewish  scholars, nor restricted to Jewish scholars. --Stephan Schulz 15:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *It is you who are a racist anti-Semite.  This is clear in the ad homenim and slanderous remark, "It appears this is solely because the rest don't really matter to them."  All major Jewish organizations make it plain that the Nazis killed many other people, and had genocidal policies toward the Roma.  The word "Holocaust" is not a generic word referring to any slaughter.  It historically refers to the Nazi's genocidal campaign against the Jews - that is how the word was first applied to genocide (prior to the nazi campaign against the Jews, the word holocaust did not refer to genocide and was used in other, often innoccuous, ways).  Now, to claim that the Nazis hated Jews does not mean that the Nazi's hated only Jews; to claim that the Nazis conducted a genocidal campaign against Jews does not mean that the Nazis conducted a genocidal campaign against only Jews.  You do not understand simple basic logic: to say that "X occured" is not the same thing as saying "Y did not occur."  But as you are a racist you are probably incapable of logical thought.  At this point I see no reason to continue responding to a blatant anti-semite.  The discussion is over. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *Apparently you have trouble with comprehending the English language. No, the article does not define the term. It describes it. This is something completely different. And of course we can have reliable sources about history, and of course history is not "just opinion". If you have reliable sources that show a more inclusive use of the word, by all means bring them on, and we can incorporate them. I don't know what my religion or ethnicity has to do with my reasoning. Anyways, if you are interested, information about one is easily available, and information about the other should be deducable from other comments I have made. --Stephan Schulz 18:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Your "fiends" are Jewish? Good freudian slip there. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *The original source from the United Nations News Centre has been inserted. The United Nations consistently describe the Holocaust as including non-Jews : “The Holocaust was a unique and undeniable tragedy,” Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a video message played to a special memorial ceremony in the General Assembly Hall on the Holocaust in which 6 million Jews, 500,000 Roma and Sinti and other minorities, disabled and homosexuals were killed."    --Salom Khalitun 20:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, this is not a scholary publication, but rather a excerpt from a remembrance speech. It does not deal with the problem of definition. It may, however, be used as one piece of evidence for Salom's POV. Assuming for the sake of the argument that we accept this speech as a WP:RS, it would still not justify Salom's edit. In that case, we have conflicting reliable sources, and WP:NPOV would require us to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and [to] do so in proportion to the prominence of each". In my opinion, the first step towards this would be a review of a representative sample of reliable sources to enable us to gauge the current state of the discussuion.--Stephan Schulz 20:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can get hundreds of references for this in favour and hundreds of references against. It doesn't prove anything. The fact that mainly Jewish authors consider the Holocaust as Jewish only is already in the article. This already accounts for the the two definitions. Why anyone would want to exclude non-Jews anyway is pure and callous bigotry. --Salom Khalitun 20:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me try again. We do not decide which version we want or which we think would be more fair, or improve the world. We only report how the term is actually used. I'm still missing any evidence that "mainly Jewish authors consider the Holocaust as Jewish only". And to be clear: No-one (except for some fringe assholes) denies that the Nazis killed millions of Jews and millions of members of various minorities, including Roma, homosexuals, Jehovas witnesses, and others. The question is wether the term "Holocaust" applies all of the killing, or only to part of it. --Stephan Schulz 20:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The United Nations any many others include all victims. Most Jews and some others do not. There are different opinions. Including all victims and then pointing out that the Jewish definition does not include non-Jews accounts for both viewpoints. The problem here is that there are some Jews who are trying to impose only the largely Jewish viewpoint. --Salom Khalitun 20:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The complete lack of supporting sources is noted. --Stephan Schulz 20:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racist definition of Holocaust 

message: I see the word "murdered" all over this article. when a state kills someone, it is typically called an execution, not a murder. When a supposedly neutral article calls an execution a murder, it is condemning the killing. Condemnation has no place in wiki, so I think that all references to the word murder (unless it was one individual killing another) should be removed and replaced with a more neutral word. R.westermeyer 20:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When a state executes someone, it's usually being done after a trial and by law. Obviously, that is not the case. You are welcome to open up a dictionary. Anyway, the word 'murder' defines quite well the even of the Holocaust. Radical-Dreamer 14:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You seriously underestimate the Germans obsession with efficient bureaucracy and legality, even when they are murdering people.  Although many Jewish Germans were "murdered" in events like the night of broken glass, an imprisonment in the concentration camps often involved "court hearings".  The crime? being Jewish, or Roma, or ....  The Nazis were efficient in both killing and the bureaucracy of killing.  They made sure that much of what they did was "legal".  Making things legal is easy in a dictatorship.  Now, it is important to see that murder is a term of condemnation whereas execution is a term of legitimacy or at least legal legitimacy.  Of course the genocide should not be given any legitimacy because the Nazis made it "legal", however, just because capitol punishment is "legal" in the US, is it not also murder if you are against it? I am for the use of the word murder in this article, as well as in any article discussing states taking the lives of their citizens. Dkriegls 06:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're for it because it advances your point of view, which is contrary to what we're trying to do here.  Please, don't insist on calling it "murder" because you're against the death penalty.  It so happens I also feel that what the Nazis did was murder, but objectively they were executions because the state decided to perform the killings and it followed their policy at the time.  It's hard to keep emotions out of an article like this but you have to do it if it's to be a good encylopedic entry.  I prefer "execution" because it's a more neutral term, not because I want to legitimize what those murderers did. -- Atamasama 23:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, it was murder plain and simple. First, most of the Holocaust killing, while performed using instruments of the state, was not actually legal even under Nazi laws. But secondly, and more importantly, no state even can legalize something like that. --Stephan Schulz 23:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppose you can argue that the killings were in violation of the Nuremberg Laws which stated that hard labour and fines would be imposed on Jews, and at worse imprisonment.  So I can accept your argument that it wasn't legal.  But any state can legalize anything it want within its own borders, that's part of what sovereignty means.  It doesn't mean the rest of the world needs to accept it, and it certainly doesn't make it right. -- Atamasama 15:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think a more precise word is genocide, a term that came into use in the 1940's.  Wanderer57 23:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But genocide is not a verb.  They were murdered, killed, executed, almost all of which work well as synonyms. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murder | Executed 

message: Below are some reliable sources on the topic. Please feel free to add more. --Stephan Schulz 20:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Salom, there is valid question of definition here, and sources do vary in their definitions, but asking questions like "are you Jewish?" does not help. You do your cause no favours by making remarks to the effect that Jewish writers don't care about anyone else or claiming that an author of Britanicca is "obviously Jewish". Paul B 21:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: * I suggest you read my contributions, Salom. I have not, so far, taken a position on the issue. I've pointed out that various of your versions were unsourced or even in conflict with existing sources (or even common sense). As you can see from my collection of sources, I have not looked for sources for one side, but tried to get a feeling how reliable souces see the issue. And I strongly suggest that you stop speculating about the religion and/or ethnicity of people, either Wikipedians or others. There is no world Jewish conspiracy at work here. --Stephan Schulz 21:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Who is "you"? Paul B 21:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, "you" is probably me. I included the OED because it is one of the best-known and authorative dictionaries around. The Cambridge one is not associated with the University of Cambridge, but rather with Cambridge near Boston, and I was not aware of its existence up to now. Got the wrong impresson there.Stephan Schulz 14:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The article should reflect what reliable sources say. If most let the word stand for the attempted extermination of Jews by Nazi Germany, but a few extend the definition to mass executions of other civilians, let the article reflect that difference, in roughly the same proportion. Does that make sense? That way our sources, rather than our individual opinions, create the balance in the article. Jd2718 21:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that, while most people probably equate the Holocaust with the killing of the six million Jews, wikipedia still has a responsibility to tell people of those who were killed besides the Jews. I understand your reasoning, but should Wikipedia delete the article on quantum field theory because most people don't even know that such a thing exists? My point is that the reason most people wrongly believe that the Nazis only killed Jews is because of the lack of information on the other 5 million people killed. Nobody really makes too much mention of those other 5 million, and there for most people simply think that the Holocaust was "Jew-specific". Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, has a responsibility to tell people of those other five million. In short, the reason most people equate the Holocaust with Jews is because nobody has told them otherwise. R.westermeyer 22:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the article, or at least the contents box. It tells about everyone who was killed. There are entire paragraphs devoted to Roma, homosexuals, and Jehovah's Witnesses. There is more about Jews than anyone else. And this balance, with shorter references to other groups, fairly accurately reflects the balance in our sources. Jd2718 00:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Huge numbers of people were killed by the Nazis, of course, but the question here is which of those killings should be included under the label 'holocaust'. No-one denies that other killings occurred - appalling massacres in Poland and Russia for example - but the term holocaust is usually restricted to the systematic killing of civilians whose only offense was their racial/ethnic identity, not their opposition to German war aims. The people who died in the Warsaw uprising, or at Lidice, for example, were killed to intimidate and terrify any potential opposition to German war aims, not simply because they were who they were. The difficulty is in usefully delimiting the term 'holocaust'. The word itself had simply come to mean 'oblitrative massacre' at the time that it was adopted. Many historians use it to refer to Jewish deaths specifically, sometimes self-consciously, sometimes just because Jews were undoubtedly the main targets for obliteration. Others are more inclusive, but there are big problems with inclusiveness, since you get to create a "slippery slope" in which any group who were targeted in any way by Nazis can claim to be holocaust victims. In many cases the Nazis never had any plan to kill all members of these groups simply for being who they were. They merely legislated against certain actions and practices (e.g. homosexuality or pacifism) and then imprisoned people who refused to abide by their laws - just as any nation does. The difference was that the Nazis were much more brutal than most other nations. In the war, imprisonment usually meant being sent sent to a concentration camp, and that often meant that people imprisoned died. But that's very different from the attitude to Jews. They didn't imprison and then murder Jews to intimidate opposition, or to discourage practices that they had made illegal. They killed them for being Jewish. That is the distinctive feature. Pacifists and homosexuals could have changed their behaviour. Of course you can say that it was unfair to expect them to do so. True enough. Those who refused to do so were sticking to their principles. But at least they had the choice. Jews were not even allowed that. Even the Spanish Inquisition allowed them to convert. The Nazis allowed no option at all. If you were of Jewish descent, you were, by definition a "criminal" Paul B 00:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be valid for this article, the claim that "the term holocaust is usually restricted to the systematic killing of civilians whose only offense was their racial/ethnic identity" needs to be backed up by sources which state this. Otherwise, it's original research. But if some sources restrict the term holocaust this way, but others have a wider view of the term & include victims who were Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, mentally ill, etc. under the term, then WP:NPOV demands that the view represented by those sources also be represented in this article.  From the dictionary definitions posted above, it appears that a significant number of sources include other civilian victims besides those targeted for their ethnicity under the definition of holocaust.  --Yksin 17:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is in fact no rule against making such general points on talk pages. However the problem in this case is that there is no consistency in usage among historians, and many books do not explain or justify their usage. Often the word is simply used as a synonym for Final Solution, or for ethnically based murders without explicitly saying so. Some of the very earliest usages are very generalised comments, following from the earlier unspecific meaning of "overwhelming disaster", or from the earlier use of the word to refer to the Armenian genocide. This is very well documented, but it's often about historians' de facto usage rather than any explicit assertion that "The Holocaust = YXYZ, but not ABC". Hence the repeated vague statements about "Jews and others" in so many definitions. None of the dictionary definitions state which 'others' should be included. If they did, we would have a clearer sense of a specific debate locatable in specific sources. The expansion of 'lists' of victim groups partly arises from lobbying by various groups wishing to get their victimhood recognised and is therefore mostly associated with policy statements from beaurocratic sources rather than historians. The problem for this article is the tendency for some editors to add a particular group to the list, and for others to remove it. Paul B 09:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is why wikipedia is not a dictionary and dictionaries are of very limited use for Wikipedia.  it is not a question of a dictionary definition, it is a question of usage.  The article should explain who uses the word and in what way.  It should document changing uses of the word.  My bet is you will find that in the late 1940s/early 1950s virtually everyon used "the Holocaust" to refer to the genocidal campaign against the Jews.  My guess is that by the 1970s different groups were using "The Holocuast" in other ways.  We should distinguish between scholars, states, and victim's agents or advocates.  I think our best sources are various Holocaust Museums, and the scholarly literature on the Holocaust.  There is a huge field of Holocaust studies.  It doesn't matter what we think the word means or should mean, we should be looking at how scholars and others use the word. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. —Parhamr 16:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In Israal, Jews have an entire country as a mouthpiece for them, as well as rich lobby groups in countries such as the U.S.A.. Gypsies and Jehovah's Witnesses don't. The Israeli government and Jewish groups very evidently give prominence to "their own" rather than groups such as homosexuals (who are considered as an abomination in Judaism), and Jehovah's witnesses, which is considered an alien religion by them. They know of others that were affected, but they certainly don't fuss over them, and consequently even define it as only a Jewish event. --Salom Khalitun 22:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gypsies are a valid comparison, but Jehovah's Witnesses were not imprisoned or killed because of their identity, but because they refused to join the armed forces. It was for an act, nor for an identity. For the same reason, they also suffered from attacks in Allied countries (notably the US, Canada and Australia). Paul B 00:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring above to the Cambridge English Dictionary, which properly includes all the victims. What has been done some paragraphs previously is to selectively use the "American English" Dictionary instead. Another case of the Jewish supporters going around looking for the evidence that supports them and ignoring the evidence that doesn't. There's obvious bias and motivation in people that do  that. They have no interest in the facts. --Salom Khalitun 23:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can find out, there is no such thing as the "Cambridge English Dictionary". At the very least, it is not available online at the Cambridge University Press dictionary site. If you have another source in mind, by all means add it. --Stephan Schulz 23:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

text: That dictionary is English, as in the language, instead of the American English dictionary you provided. Adding up how many references or which people claim one or the other is ludicrous. Holocaust is simply defined differently. Some people - very wrongly or ignorantly - only include Jews. The millions of others simply don't matter to them ! Why should they care about a bunch of Gypos, faggots and cripples anyway. --Salom Khalitun 23:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Failure to provide a concrete source noted once more. --Stephan Schulz 00:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: More crap from Schulz once more. United Nations policy is more than concrete. So is Cambridge Dictionaries http://dictionary.cambridge.org/that I have already referred to. --Salom Khalitun 12:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm...now you are getting incoherent. That is the very site I used above. There are two normal dictionaries there: The Advanced Learners and the American English. What is not there (or maybe I just cannot find it) is a "Cambridge English Dictionary".  I've added the second definition, although I don't see how it advances your point. --Stephan Schulz 14:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It's obvious that the Jewish contingent here have no regard for historical facts. They solely want to perpetuate their callous and bigoted disregard for anyone that isn't Jewish. That's why their reasoning is such utter crap. --Salom Khalitun 12:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gypsies were sent to concentration camps solely for being Gypsies. Auschwitz had a Gypsy camp solely for them. But Gypsies don't matter to a lot of Jews. They only care about their own. That's why you get Jewish and Jewish influenced authors stating obviously false historical facts by including only Jews. They simply don't care about the rest. --Salom Khalitun 12:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Jewish or Jewish influenced authors of books we've never heard of ! Of course Jewish authors will exclude all non-Jews. They don't care about anyone else. Their racial bigotry is as bad as that of the Nazi perpetrators. --Salom Khalitun 15:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources defining the Holocaust 

message: I just filed on against User:Salom Khalitun here.  Would other people comment?  Thanks,
Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rubenstein has already been personally very abusive and offensive. He has no shame. :*you....are a racist anti-Semite.  But as you are a racist you are probably incapable of logical thought.  At this point I see no reason to continue responding to a blatant anti-semite.  The discussion is over. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of my friends are Jewish !!! --Salom Khalitun 15:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Appears to be part of this. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: This article doesn't give proper weight to alternative views. Many scholars are skeptical of the "6 million" figure, some question whether the "Holocaust" actually occurred at all. This article is regurgitating what the liberal media have been shoving down our throats for decades now: that what is written now is the "mainstream" scientific point of view. Anyone who questions it is immediately labeled an "anti-semite" and cast aside, and that's what seems to be happening in this article. There is nothing more than a link to "Holocaust denial" at the end of the page. There is complete disregard for the countless scholarly studies that challenge the mainstream orthodoxy. As it is, this is the most biased article on Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.191.59.201 (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. It is not POV to give undue weight to holocaust deniers, all of whom are antisemites. The only reason for holocaust denial is to justify antisemitism in some way, shape or form. There is nothing scholarly about the practice.--SefringleTalk 05:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DNFTT. --Stephan Schulz 05:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The anonymous edit was not me or anything to do with me. The anonymous editor is entirely inconsistent with what I had written. It is obvious from what I had written that I fully believe that the Holocaust took place. It is sheer stupidity and delusion to believe otherwise. Prof Fiferman was not me either. I asked him to respond as he knows more about the subject than I do. You are using personal abuse and bogus claims of sockpuppetry to try to shut up anything that opposes what you want to believe. The prevalent view of the definition of Holocaust is clearly that it is not Jewish only. The detailed review added by Prof Fiferman (who is Jewish !) conclusively prooves that. If you had any self respect you'd respond to the evidence provided. You obviously can't, and so instead want to impose your Jewish only view of the Holocaust, when millions that were not Jewish were affected. It is obvious that your concerns are only with the Jewish victims. You have a callous disregard for the other victims. You are as bad as the Holocaust deniers but at the opposite extreme. Paul B is approaching this very objectively. However, I'm not surprised at all that Paul B has seen his previous attempts at providing cogent evidence constantly reverted. There are unfortunately many people like you on Wikipedia that have little regard for the facts and that instead use any means possible to try to impose false versions of events to suit their own prejudices. --Salom Khalitun 2 14:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Hello. I'm not Salom, nor any of his friends. I'm a Pole living in the US and have stumbled upon this discussion while researching the Polish defense campaign in 1939. I do agree with Salom, however, that whenever the subject of Holocaust is brought up, the discussion is almost always limited to the extermination of Jews. This is very surprising to me and I have encountered this phenomenon only after I moved to the US. Prior to this, when I lived in Europe, I recall remembrances of the Nazi WWII extermination of non-Aryans (including Jews, of course) as having a somewhat different meaning -- they were inclusive and not contentious. Perhaps because we lived through this tragedy, we have felt no need to engage in such debates? I don't know. But please follow this link and the sources it lists for another view of the Holocaust victims: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_of_the_Polish_citizens_by_the_occupiers#Casualties—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.94.153 (talk • contribs) 
Anonymous user, I do not understand your point.  You provide a link that does one thing - demonstrates that Wikipedia does provide converage of Nazi murder of Poles - and fails to do another thing - demonstrate that Poles, at least in the aftermath of WWII, refered to the murder of non-Jewish Poles as "the Holocuast."  When Jews refer to "the" Holocaust, they are referring to the Nazi genocidal campaign against the Jews.  There are verifiable sources of this practice dating to at least the early 1950s.  The question is, who else uses this word, and how.  Are you saying that in the 1950s Poles were using the greek word, Holocaust, to refer to Nazi murder of Poles?  Well, I am not dismissing you, but what is your source, and we can include that.  Of course, the fact that Jews use the words "The Holocaust" does not mean they are dismissive of horrible crimes against others.  Moreover, this article has a section on the murder of non-jews, and links to at least a dozen other articles on nazi murder of different groups.  So I do not see the relevance of your link to the article.  What in the article would you change? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-neutral article 

message: The map in the article showing numbers of ghettos (by administrative unit? by, not sure what) seems awfully strange. [] The borders don't correspond to either modern or contemporary borders. The use of solid colors (chloropeth) is misleading (poor mapmaking) to show numeric data. There is no sense of the scale of each ghetto. Each arrow is the same width; the reader will interpret their lengths to be in proportion to their human scale (which is not true). It is not clear which ghettos have and which have not been counted, etc, etc. Would there be objection to looking for a replacement? Jd2718 00:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange Map 

message: The request is about the last sentence in the second paragraph of the article "The Holocaust".  Here is the sentence:
"Taking into account all the victims of Nazi persecution, the death toll rises considerably: estimates generally place the total number of victims at nine to 11 million.[6]"
I request this sentence be changed to:
"Taking into account all the victims of Nazi persecution, the death toll is estimated at between 9 and 11 million people.[6]"
Reasons for request:
The main reason to get rid of the word "considerably".  Why?  The death toll rose.  There is no need to supply an adverb to describe how it rose.  The numbers speak for themselves.
If one had to include an adverb to describe the rise, "considerably" is a very bad choice.  It trivializes the statement that 3 to 5 million more people died.
Secondary reason - to simplify the sentence, which is unnecessarily wordy.
Thank you.    Wanderer57 02:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I left out the "people" as redundant, as the context makes it clear.--Stephan Schulz 03:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you.Wanderer57 17:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change Request 

message: The section about Jewish Resistance is well written.  Will someone please research and add information about other resisters who were not Jewish?  There were certainly plenty of them, and if this article is truly encyclopedic their information would be included as well.  Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.182.51.67 (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Jewish Resistance 

message: For god's sake, was that "corpses" picture necessary? I feel sick, in the stomach and the head...I say we get rid of it. 172.189.124.183 20:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, Wikipedia is not censored. It is something to be expected at an article like this. Reginmund 20:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Regimund as unpleasant as it is.Joel Mc 10:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes it is necessary. Because seeing is believing. Just imagine if you were there, and saw that. Or you were one of "them". My father helped liberate Dachau, and he was never the same since. It was/is horrible. In these types of articles it is very necessary to provide photos to show the true horror that words cannot describe. I know it's sickening, but that's what it was, and words alone cannot portray the pure horror of the Holocaust. Have you ever been to the Holocaust Museum? If not, this is the best you'll get to understand. I have been, and the words my father told me while I was growing up did not register as much as seeing the images had when we went together and told me the stories again. He witnessed it, he experienced it. The images help convey this horrible time in history than any words could not describe. "A picture is worth a thousand words". So true, isn't it? Yes it is sickening. That's the point. Sorry about how you it made you feel, as I understand. There are some things I don't want to know, or especially to see. But, reality is real. Ugh. :( Jeeny 10:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No need for total censorship, but... 

message: There is such a discrepency between the two figures, both reported by reputable organizations, perhaps it would be good to indicate that.  The Holocaust Encyclopedia has a good little discussion of the problem of getting accurate figures. Joel Mc 16:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let speak about numbers which are on english wikipedia. Data of 600,000 victims in Jasenovac from Yad Vashem is false because you will find in article Genocide denial that this centar claim 600,000 victims in Jasenovac camp and 500,000 victims in all Independent state of Croatia which is simple not possible. In support of this claim is census of Bosnia and Herzegovina where between 1931 and 1948 number of Serbs has gone up from 1,028,139 to 1,136,116 which is simple not possible if 600,000 Serbs are killed in Jasenovac (On wiki we are not having census of Croatia in 1931 and 1948). Maybe Holocaust Encyclopedia is having to low number of people killed in Jasenovac (between 53,000 and 96,000) because 53,000 is really to low but number of 330,000-390,000 victims for all teritory of Independent state of Croatia is OK. Rjecina 02:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The number of dead wasn't just from the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and there is a large gap between 1931 and 1941. The census wasn't fully conducted due to the war. For example, an estimate is that there were almost 1.3 million Serbs on the territory of modern-day Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1941. Which means that the number decreased, rather. And the first figure includes only Orthodox Serbs, the latter some Muslims too, which means that the Orthodox figure is lower (next to the gap between 1945 and 1948). --PaxEquilibrium 12:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jasenovic figures

message: The picture description states:
The Nazis methodically tracked the progress of the Holocaust in thousands of reports and documents. Pictured is the Höfle Telegram sent to Adolf Eichmann in January, 1943, that reported that 1,274,166 Jews had been killed in the four Aktion Reinhard camps during 1942.
But translation doesn't specifically says Jews but shows number of executions in camps. Is there another part of the telegram that specifically states 1,274,166 Jews had been executed? If not, how is the ethnicity of the victims established?— Preceding unsigned comment added by  74.236.46.118 (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2007
:You're kidding right? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Höfle Telegram sent to Adolf Eichmann 

message: This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 3, 2007, compares against the  six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?:  The article is reasonably well-written, but is not entirely compliant with the Manual of Style and good encyclopedic writing. A few examples of issues to be fixed are:
* The "Lucy S. Dawidowicz" sentence in Jewish victims is an example of two problems present. First, self-referential material is unencyclopedic and should not be included. Second, single-sentence paragraphs are undesirable. The layout of Jewish victims is pretty incomprehensible, and makes it extremely hard to discern what the most verifiable stats are.
* Many sections do not have decent intros or transitions, making the change and interconnectivity of the topics jolting.
* A quotation of less than four lines should never be in blockquote format.
:2. Factually accurate?:  While the sheer amount of references present is impressive, the article still suffers from a common problem: a lack of comprehensive inline citations. The bare minimum is one at the end of each paragraph and for quotations. Ideally, and especially for controversial topics such as this one, a direct citation for any fact likely to be challenged is desirable per WP:V. Sections lacking sufficient basic sourcing as I just defined include:
* Etymology
* Jewish victims
* Increasing persecution and pogroms (1938–1942)
* Early measures in Poland, Concentration and labor camps (1933–1945)
* Ghettos (1940–1945)
* Death squads (1941–1943)
* Wannsee Conference and the final solution (1942–1945)
* Extermination camps
* Jewish resistance
* and Climax
:3. Broad in coverage?:  This one is prima facie evident.
:4. Neutral point of view?:   Though in general, the article is an exemplar of neutrality, I do see some obviously troubling spots. The first paragraph of Jewish resistance sounds like it's trying to defend Jews from accusations of apathy. This may just be a product of bad writing in an attempt to define what really constituted resistance, but it doesn't read neutrally. But in general, the article is really great at giving fair treatment to subjects covered. However, the other half of neutrality is giving space for the representation of all significant views. Sadly, the denial of the Holocaust is a significant view in terms of the amount of published news and source material devoted to it. Obviously, there is not enough space in this article to deal with all the quackery associated with this subject, but a small mention of the existence of deniers, and a simple  link is necessary in order to represent all views and achieve good neutrality.
:5. Article stability?   My feelings are made clear by the above.
:6. Images?:  While plenty of good images are present and accounted for with licenses, there are major issues with their use per the guidelines of WP:MOS#Images.
* Images are often stacked in a line on top of one another. This is discouraged by WP:MoS#Images as being crowded and unattractive. The most egregious violation is from the Wannsee Conference to Gas chambers. If there isn't room for an image without violating this guideline, then an additional image doesn't belong.
* Images often "sandwich" the text, meaning that two images on either side of a passage constrict the text making it hard to read. Left-right orientation does not mean an image on the left and the right for every section.
* Captions are for describing the content of an image, not edification of encyclopedic content. There are several instances of excessively long captions.
Final comments: As you can see, stability is not the only issue with this article. I haven't even done a complete MoS review for minor grammar and punctuation. In my estimation, these changes would have taken longer than the maximum hold period of a week, so there was no point in placing the article on hold.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated.  If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment.  Thank you for your work so far.
— VanTucky Talk 23:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks VanTucky.  That helps in cleaning up this article.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: VanTucky's point 4, above, is something I raised quite a while ago. I think that over-reliance on a single source (Berenbaum) gave that source's voice (including what VanTucky mentions) too much weight in the article.
While he doesn't raise it, the overall organization (neither geographic nor chronological, but almost a plot analysis from opening to climax) deserves some discussion. SV and Crum rewrote the article wholesale last spring, with little input (it would seem) from other editors. I think serious, sober discussion is in order. Jd2718 00:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am relatively new to this particular article.  I try to stay out of articles where I have a deeply personal interest (for example, I'm an ex-US Navy Officer, and I rarely edit US Navy articles, and I have relatives who died in the Holocaust, so I have stayed away from this one), but I think some serious editors need to get behind it.  I was actually shocked that it was not FA, as it should be.  I'm willing to help--one of my better skills is to review and clean up citations.  I'm a stickler for primary sources (or good secondary review sources), cleanly formatted citations, and that type of issues.  I think with many editors (not casting aspersions to SV and Crum, because they may have cleaned up a POV mess) can help get this going.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not mean to cast aspersions on the roles of SV and Crum; they greatly improved the article. But I do think that wider involvement would be a positive thing. Ironically, despite my role in removing Normandy, I do think that the article suffers from almost no sense of timeline and almost no sense of geography. I mentioned above what I feel is overreliance on one source, but others may disagree. Finally, I note that anecdotes are used as illustrations, almost as references; this 'feels' wrong. That being said, this article is not so terribly far away. VanTucky has an incomplete list; it provides a starting point. Jd2718 01:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm new to Wikipedia.  Tell me please, what sort of at least semi-orderly approach to revision of an article such as this is possible within the framework of Wikipedia.   (is this the right place for discussion of the question I'm asking?) Wanderer57 03:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we want to take this thing to Good Article and Featured Article status, we would need to follow Wikipedia's manual of style along with following some basic precepts like neutral point of view, using reliable sources, avoid giving undue weight to fringe theories or Holocaust deniers.  Otherwise, be bold and make some edits.  I think some of the comments above are also helpful.  We need to stick to a general timeline to make the article flow.  I'd start with the lead which should be 3-4 paragraphs that outline what we're attempting.  I'd say, but I'm not an expert, that the lead have four general paragraphs--what is the Holocaust, general timeline, the numbers (I don't know how to say it right), and the consequences.  Once we figure out the lead, I think the article will fall together quite nicely.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right about the length and content that should be included Orange. But also remember that the fundamental definition of a good lead is a concise overview of the article. VanTucky Talk 18:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination

message: I've just tagged the section "Non-Jewish victims" and some entries in the table with "need of attention" tags. For more information, see below. --Dna-Dennis 22:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All these references to Ukraine have been added in the last 2 days by user:Mona23653, whose edits elsewhere have also evidently been disputed. I see she has also recently added the unsourced claim that 5 million Ukrainians died in the Holocaust. Hyping Ukrainisn victimhood seems to be part of a nationalistic movement  Paul B 17:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unable to find the references given by user:Mona23653 aka Adolf23653, i.e. Kanigin, Yuri. The Beginning and End of the Worlds".  Googled both author and title, and looked at Library of Congress class, as well as IBSN.  No sign.  In any case I do think that we need to be careful to include in this section only those who were targeted because they were members of national, ethnical, racial or religious groups (or Gays).  Tragically, millions of Ukranians died, but I know of no evidence that they were individually targeted. Civilian casualities terrible as they are don't belong in the Holocaust statistics (after all we don't include the tens of thousands that died in the Blitz). As far as we know, the Germans did not recruit any Jews, Sinti, Roma, or Gays to be "assistants" to the Einsatzgruppen.Joel Mc 18:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't agree more. All casualties are tragic, but Holocaust figures IMO should only include targeted victims. Regards, --Dna-Dennis 19:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In 1939 the Ukrainian population increased by 10 million due mostly to territory annexed from Poland and Rumania. The Poles consider the losses in the western Ukraine as "Polish" and include about 2 million deaths in the Ukraine, Belarus & Lithunia in the Polish total of 5 million war dead. The Soviets also include these 2 million in their total of 26.6 million war dead. To avoid duplication you need to make the call, are these folks Polish, Soviet or Ukrainian? No matter what you do some people will disagree with you. In any case you must make that call in order to avoid duplication. The Soviet era statistic for the entire Ukraine was 6.8 million dead including 1.6 million military. 4/5 were from the 1939 Ukraine and 1/5 from the annexed territories if you pro rate the population--Woogie10w 00:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The key points to remember are that the Soviet/Russian statistic of 6.8 million Ukrainian war dead includes about 1.6 million soldiers, 1/5 of the 6.8 million are from annexed territories(already included with Polish-Rumanian war dead) and about 10% of the total were Jews. To arrive at the the figure of ethnic Ukrainian Holocaust dead is a bit tricky.--Woogie10w 11:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We have whittled the number down to 3.7 million non Jewish civilian dead in the 1939 borders of the Ukraine. Within that number are Ukrainians in the ranks of the German Army and victims of Soviet repression. This is tricky indeed.--Woogie10w 11:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Blockading cities "to starve out the population" is a military tactic that has been used since ancient times. It's not an aspect of genocidal policies. And saying that numbers of dead Ukainians has been "made up by nationalists" is not the same as saying that "the Holocaust waas made up by Jews". No one is denying that large numbers Ukrainians died. What is being denied is that their deaths were organised mass murders. The debate in this section makes it clear that Ukrainians were not singled out by the Nazis for eliminaton just because they were Ukrainian. I'm not sure what the relevance of your point about religion is. Paul B 15:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The Germans bragged in their 1943 newsreel propaganda that the home front had plenty of food compared to 1914-18. The newsreel footage had statistics of the food looted from the Ukraine, millions of Ukrainians were deported to Germany as forced laborers and Hitler's scorched earth policy caused hardship after the war. About 4 million non-Jewish Ukrainian civilians(out of 40 million,10%) died as a result. This cannot be compared to the Jewish Holocaust where 90% died --Woogie10w 16:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: First of all, I see no problem with having an "Ukrainian" entry, if that entry is reasonably well documented and includes Ukrainian non-Jewish, non-Soviet, non-Polish, deliberately ideologically targeted victims of Nazi persecution. To me, it's as easy as that. But as it stands now, your previously claimed figures of e.g. 6-11 million is obviously disputed by me and others above. As others have pointed out, it obviously seems to be quite complicated; (1) Who is what, and who was targeted by Nazis for pure ideological reasons? - as Woogie10w pointed out: "To avoid duplication you need to make the call, are these folks Polish, Soviet or Ukrainian?" (2) Who was deliberately targeted? - as Joel Mc pointed out: we can't include all civilian casualties, we don't include victims of The Blitz. And the issue is certainly not about total war dead. And Paul B pointed out: where they targeted just because they were Ukrainian? I would be very happy to get further enlightened concerning the Ukraine matters, but until we have something which is reasonably accountable, avoiding "duplicated" victims, we can't simply bluntly put in a giant Ukraine figure in this article. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 18:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Mona your post of 6.8 million war dead for the Ukraine includes 1.6 million military and 1 million Jews counted with Jewish Holocaust losses. Then there is the problem that Poland also counts 1.4 million war dead in the western Ukraine in their losses. This is a tricky reconciliation, we need to check our numbers before making a post --Woogie10w 16:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The demographic loss of 2 million non jewish Poles in the war has never been explained in detail. We do know that 100,000 died in the military and that about 200,000 in the Warsaw uprising. The Soviets deported at least 800,000 ethnic Poles and up 300,000 may have perished. During the war the Ukrainian UPA masacred about 100,000 Poles. Those figures add up to 700,000. The remaining 1.3 million died directly or indirectly as the result of the German occupation. Hungar and disease took its toll due to German confiscations of food. Millions were rounded up and sent to work in Germany and the shooting of hostages was commonplace. We do not have an accurate statistical breakout of these 2.0 million victims of the German and Soviet occupation.
The 1947 Polish government report claimed 3.2 million non jewish dead but never provided the details of how the number was derived. The respected Polish historians K. Kersten and C. Luzak have recently(1994)shown that the original Polish figure of 6 million war dead overstated war losses by about 1 million because the ethnic Poles that remained in the USSR were counted as dead. In 1947 they had to rely on the word of the Soviets that all Poles were repatriated.--Woogie10w 01:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This link should help you-A recent study by Vladimir ŽerjavićYugoslavia manipulations with the number Second World War victims, - Zagreb: Croatian Information center,1993   and   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woogie10w (talk • contribs) 01:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: this is ridiculous, you can put them all in one box and make them look equal in number when 95% of them are serbs --Vladar86  —Preceding comment was added at 21:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To make them look equal was never my intention; the intention was to make the table entry comprehensible, and use proper ref notes to further describe the issue. Vladar86, do you have any scholarly source for your 95% figure? Or even better, scholarly estimates on the number/distribution of victims (Serbs, Croats, Jews, Roma) in all FY? If so, I'd be most happy to hear about them. Regards, --Dna-Dennis 22:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Jewish Victims Table 

message: The table beside the section "Non-Jewish victims" states that
*4.1-7.8 million Ukrainians were killed during the Holocaust (footnote: The Holocaust#_note-mona23653).
The footnote on the page World War II Casualties (footnote: World War II casualties#endnote USSR) states that
*Ukrainas total military & civilian toll were 6,850,000 million, and
*Soviet Union's total toll of Nazi genocide and reprisals was 7.1 million, and
*Soviet Union's total Jewish toll was 1 million
So, we have a rather large confusion here, and a serious discrepancy. What we need to establish is:
*How many Ukrainians were killed during the Holocaust?
*How many of these were Jews?
We can't have a table here which exaggerates the Ukraine figures (unless it's correct), and the table figures can't include Jews, if it's put at the section "Non-Jewish victims". I'll be thankful for an answer here and/or on my talk page, since I am working on new graphic items for Wikipedia regarding the Holocaust. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 16:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All these references to Ukraine have been added in the last 2 days by user:Mona23653, whose edits elsewhere have also evidently been disputed. I see she has also recently added the unsourced claim that 5 million Ukrainians died in the Holocaust. Hyping Ukrainisn victimhood seems to be part of a nationalistic movement  Paul B 17:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unable to find the references given by user:Mona23653 aka Adolf23653, i.e. Kanigin, Yuri. The Beginning and End of the Worlds".  Googled both author and title, and looked at Library of Congress class, as well as IBSN.  No sign.  In any case I do think that we need to be careful to include in this section only those who were targeted because they were members of national, ethnical, racial or religious groups (or Gays).  Tragically, millions of Ukranians died, but I know of no evidence that they were individually targeted. Civilian casualities terrible as they are don't belong in the Holocaust statistics (after all we don't include the tens of thousands that died in the Blitz). As far as we know, the Germans did not recruit any Jews, Sinti, Roma, or Gays to be "assistants" to the Einsatzgruppen.Joel Mc 18:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't agree more. All casualties are tragic, but Holocaust figures IMO should only include targeted victims. Regards, --Dna-Dennis 19:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In 1939 the Ukrainian population increased by 10 million due mostly to territory annexed from Poland and Rumania. The Poles consider the losses in the western Ukraine as "Polish" and include about 2 million deaths in the Ukraine, Belarus & Lithunia in the Polish total of 5 million war dead. The Soviets also include these 2 million in their total of 26.6 million war dead. To avoid duplication you need to make the call, are these folks Polish, Soviet or Ukrainian? No matter what you do some people will disagree with you. In any case you must make that call in order to avoid duplication. The Soviet era statistic for the entire Ukraine was 6.8 million dead including 1.6 million military. 4/5 were from the 1939 Ukraine and 1/5 from the annexed territories if you pro rate the population--Woogie10w 00:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The key points to remember are that the Soviet/Russian statistic of 6.8 million Ukrainian war dead includes about 1.6 million soldiers, 1/5 of the 6.8 million are from annexed territories(already included with Polish-Rumanian war dead) and about 10% of the total were Jews. To arrive at the the figure of ethnic Ukrainian Holocaust dead is a bit tricky.--Woogie10w 11:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: We have whittled the number down to 3.7 million non Jewish civilian dead in the 1939 borders of the Ukraine. Within that number are Ukrainians in the ranks of the German Army and victims of Soviet repression. This is tricky indeed.--Woogie10w 11:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Blockading cities "to starve out the population" is a military tactic that has been used since ancient times. It's not an aspect of genocidal policies. And saying that numbers of dead Ukainians has been "made up by nationalists" is not the same as saying that "the Holocaust waas made up by Jews". No one is denying that large numbers Ukrainians died. What is being denied is that their deaths were organised mass murders. The debate in this section makes it clear that Ukrainians were not singled out by the Nazis for eliminaton just because they were Ukrainian. I'm not sure what the relevance of your point about religion is. Paul B 15:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The Germans bragged in their 1943 newsreel propaganda that the home front had plenty of food compared to 1914-18. The newsreel footage had statistics of the food looted from the Ukraine, millions of Ukrainians were deported to Germany as forced laborers and Hitler's scorched earth policy caused hardship after the war. About 4 million non-Jewish Ukrainian civilians(out of 40 million,10%) died as a result. This cannot be compared to the Jewish Holocaust where 90% died --Woogie10w 16:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

text: First of all, I see no problem with having an "Ukrainian" entry, if that entry is reasonably well documented and includes Ukrainian non-Jewish, non-Soviet, non-Polish, deliberately ideologically targeted victims of Nazi persecution. To me, it's as easy as that. But as it stands now, your previously claimed figures of e.g. 6-11 million is obviously disputed by me and others above. As others have pointed out, it obviously seems to be quite complicated; (1) Who is what, and who was targeted by Nazis for pure ideological reasons? - as Woogie10w pointed out: "To avoid duplication you need to make the call, are these folks Polish, Soviet or Ukrainian?" (2) Who was deliberately targeted? - as Joel Mc pointed out: we can't include all civilian casualties, we don't include victims of The Blitz. And the issue is certainly not about total war dead. And Paul B pointed out: where they targeted just because they were Ukrainian? I would be very happy to get further enlightened concerning the Ukraine matters, but until we have something which is reasonably accountable, avoiding "duplicated" victims, we can't simply bluntly put in a giant Ukraine figure in this article. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 18:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Mona your post of 6.8 million war dead for the Ukraine includes 1.6 million military and 1 million Jews counted with Jewish Holocaust losses. Then there is the problem that Poland also counts 1.4 million war dead in the western Ukraine in their losses. This is a tricky reconciliation, we need to check our numbers before making a post --Woogie10w 16:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ukrainian discrepancy 

message: Aargh... the Non-Jewish table is in such a mess. Now it states 200,000+ Polish victims, and this number seemed low to me, even though the ref states only camp deaths are counted. Therefore I checked with Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles which states
Some three million non-Jewish Polish citizens perished during the course of the war, over two million of whom were ethnic Poles (the remainder being mainly ethnic minorities of Ukrainians and Belarusians). The vast majority of those killed were civilians, mostly massacred during special-action operations of Nazi Germany.
using e.g. this source: Poland WWII casualties.
Aargh, how should we encounter this? Should we state:
* 200,000+ (with proper ref notes), or
* 200,000 - 2 million (with proper ref notes)
or something else? And again, the figure should naturally exclude Jewish Poles.
My regards, --Dna-Dennis 19:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The demographic loss of 2 million non jewish Poles in the war has never been explained in detail. We do know that 100,000 died in the military and that about 200,000 in the Warsaw uprising. The Soviets deported at least 800,000 ethnic Poles and up 300,000 may have perished. During the war the Ukrainian UPA masacred about 100,000 Poles. Those figures add up to 700,000. The remaining 1.3 million died directly or indirectly as the result of the German occupation. Hungar and disease took its toll due to German confiscations of food. Millions were rounded up and sent to work in Germany and the shooting of hostages was commonplace. We do not have an accurate statistical breakout of these 2.0 million victims of the German and Soviet occupation.
The 1947 Polish government report claimed 3.2 million non jewish dead but never provided the details of how the number was derived. The respected Polish historians K. Kersten and C. Luzak have recently(1994)shown that the original Polish figure of 6 million war dead overstated war losses by about 1 million because the ethnic Poles that remained in the USSR were counted as dead. In 1947 they had to rely on the word of the Soviets that all Poles were repatriated.--Woogie10w 01:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish discrepancy 

message: The Serbs figure in the table now bluntly states 600,000.
This problem seems to be understandable, since the article Jasenovac concentration camp illuminates that there are obvious problems with the numbers. That article states (partly) in conjunction with United States Holocaust Memorial Museum USHMM link (Part V) :
"Due to differing views and lack of documentation, estimates for the number of Serbian victims in Croatia range widely, from 25,000 to more than one million. The estimated number of Serbs killed in Jasenovac ranges from 25,000 to 700,000. The most reliable figures place the number of Serbs killed by the Ustaša between 330,000 and 390,000, with 45,000 to 52,000 Serbs murdered in Jasenovac."
So, how should we address the matter in the table? We could either state
* Serbs: 25,000 - 1 million, or
* Serbs: 25,000 - 700,000 (ref to Jasenovac only), or
* Serbs: 330,000 - 390,000 (?)
or another suitable wording of the estimate. Anyway, just bluntly stating 600,000 is quite misleading.
We should also keep in mind that a high figure (100,000+) sensibly justifies an own section regarding this matter, along with the Soviet POWs, Roma, Disabled etc.
Any ideas on how to address this matter? And just a note: any figure will apparently include Serbs, Jews, Roma and Croats, and this must be noted in the reference. --Dna-Dennis 19:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This link should help you-A recent study by Vladimir ŽerjavićYugoslavia manipulations with the number Second World War victims, - Zagreb: Croatian Information center,1993   and   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woogie10w (talk • contribs) 01:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: this is ridiculous, you can put them all in one box and make them look equal in number when 95% of them are serbs --Vladar86  —Preceding comment was added at 21:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To make them look equal was never my intention; the intention was to make the table entry comprehensible, and use proper ref notes to further describe the issue. Vladar86, do you have any scholarly source for your 95% figure? Or even better, scholarly estimates on the number/distribution of victims (Serbs, Croats, Jews, Roma) in all FY? If so, I'd be most happy to hear about them. Regards, --Dna-Dennis 22:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbian discrepancy 

message: Furthermore, the "Disabled" table figure needs to checked. It's currently unreferenced. --Dna-Dennis 22:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Disabled" fact check 

message: In the article there is much reference to the origins of the Holocaust and how they implemented it, but it never explains why exactly these events took place.  eg.  Why the Jews were sent to Ghetto's? why they were persecuted?
I think you must include things like, "It is alleged that the Nazi's introduced the extermination camps due to war time emergency because there was too many Jews to keep in Ghetto's" blah blah blah ect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Him hippo (talk • contribs) 11:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure an article on the Holocaust requires extensive discussion about the Nazi's pathological mindset.  Six million dead.  Not sure it matters why.  Not sure it really can be answered.  And by the way, saying "blah blah blah" is somewhat disgusting.  Don't do that.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the point and think it's quite reasonable to ask these questions. But have you taken a look at the section The_Holocaust#Distinctive_features and the quite enlightening subarticle Functionalism_versus_intentionalism? If not, check it out, they are available. Regards, --Dna-Dennis 21:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Reasons Given for implementation of Nazi Race Policy... 

message: I think you should add a part with a list of books about the holocaust, and books by some of the survivors. Two books I have read are All But My Life by Gerda Weissman and Night by Elie Weisel. (please note that the spelling might be off) It is always good to have a list of the books that you could read, some people perfer to read than to look at a screen that causes damage to your eyes.
Nicolett Gonzalez
Kanata Sohma 05:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already in the separate article Holocaust (resources), which is linked at the botom of this one. --Stephan Schulz 06:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books 

message: I've just replaced the old map
*:Image:Massdeportations.PNG
with this new one:
*:Image:WW2-Holocaust-Europe.png
I've worked quite hard on it, using info from USHMM & Wikipedia.
Quick description of changes:
# Some geographical errors have been corrected.
# All camps on the map are labeled.
# More camps & ghettos are depicted.
# Different symbols are used for extermination camps, conc.camps, ghettos and cities.
# Major massacre sites have been added.
# Colors are less obtrusive, and show Axis dependency.
IMO this is better than the old one, but there might be some bugs, who knows?. If anyone has any opinions and/or suggestions I am happy to hear them, preferrably on my talk page. Since I'm recently "done" with it, I am very willing to make reasonable updates of it. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 12:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the delayed response. I appreciate your efforts. The new map is a vast improvement. Jd2718 17:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On closer inspection, aren't Slovakia and Croatia mis-colored? Jd2718 18:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New map replacing the old map, OK? 

message: Damn, how can you say that there's only one specific "holocaust". There were much greater and more cruel holocausts than that one with the death of 6.000.000 jews. If someone types "holocaust", he needs to be diverted at first to a disambiguation page were there can be found many holocausts. But if you want to dedicate the word "holocaust" only to a single genocide, then why don't you start with the holocaust of 200.000.000 indians that were killed since 1492 with the arrival of the spanish and portuguese people to the americas. They were treaten like toys and were given sometimes to the dogs as dog food. That's much worse than any other genocide. A whole race was almost destroyed. But nowadays of course it all depends on who has more money.....Yussef90 00:09, 20 October 2007 (ECT)
::I believe it is historically incorrect to apply the word "Holocaust" to what happened to the peoples of America after 1492.
::This does not mean it was any less cruel or less evil.  But it is the subject of other articles.
::One of these articles is "Spanish conquest of the Aztec Empire". Wanderer57 05:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Wanderer. First of all, it is not Wikipedia's role to define history and word use - this is the role of historians. Our role as wikipedians is to follow the common interpretation, otherwise we would break the rule of Wikipedia:No original research. Furthermore, the question of what is "holocaust" and not is much a matter of the first letter, "H", and the word "The". In history, there are more "holocausts" and genocides, but only one genocide called "The Holocaust". No need for us here to redefine history. For more info, see e.g. Bartleby Dictionary on "holocaust". And also, this article, "The Holocaust", starts with a disambiguation note: Holocaust (disambiguation). Regards, --Dna-Dennis 07:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in agreement with the well crafted reply of Dna-Dennis.  I think non-Jewish exterminations by the Nazis, however reprehensible (and they were), should be moved to their own articles, post haste.  THE Holocaust is, by academic definition, the execution of Jews by the Nazis.  There were many other mass genocides (many of them perpetrated against Jews in other times), which do not belong here. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not in complete agreement with OrangeMarlin on this. I prefer the inclusion of other groups, but naturally limit the definition to the events between 1933-45. For more reasons why, see my post below under "Definition of Holocaust" below. Regards, --Dna-Dennis 13:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The entire page was wrongly done !!! 

message: I think we need an English translation of "volksdeutsche" to use in this article.  I have a general idea of the meaning from my dictionary, but my knowledge of German is so close to zero that I cannot trust it.  Wanderer57 04:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we need a translation, since it's literal meaning is quite irrelevant.  Do you know anything about this topic? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: A quick search reveals that we have an entire article devoted to the term. Linked first instance, problem solved. – ornis⚙ 05:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volksdeutsche, used in article