Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 13

message: A distinguishing feature of the Holocaust, according to historical analysis and the concensus of the article's editors, and what separates it from other genocides during WW2 (and other genocides in history), was the "efficient" manner of its implementation by the perpetrators (2.1)  Yet there is no mention anywhere in the article about the role of the Judenräte in the deportation of the Jews under their watch to the camps.  The leaders of the various Judenräte had different approaches to the job of providing slave labor to the Nazi regime -- distributing rations to the occupants of the Ghettos, deciding who would get on the trains, and other tasks -- but it's clear that they played a fundamental role in the organization of the round-ups and deportations.  It's also clear that many of them knew that the trains were bound for extermination camps in the end, not just labor camps.  Various sources also state the corrupt nature of councils, citing how it was possible, for example, to avoid deportation with a payment or bribe.  Resistance was futile, of course, but the cooperation must be noted because it contributed to the "efficiency" of the Final Solution.  If we omit this due to sensitivity, or because we read into the accounts that such actions must have been performed reluctantly, we risk damaging the credibility of the article; among the other entries in the "collaborators" section there is no such defense given.  Where does this discussion belong:  2.1, 7.1, 7.3, 8.1, 10, and/or 12?  I propose 10 and 12 among these because some Zionists argued for a sovereign state precisely because of the compromised role Jews were forced to play, the logic being that as sovereign constituents they would never again be forced to participate in their own destruction.  Patrekursson 05:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judenräte 

message: Nothing much about the actual article was going on, so I figured it was a good day to archive. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jpgordon, other than personal attacks on me for trying to learn more about the Holocaust so I can debate Revisionists, you're right that archiving it was the right thing to do. Jtpaladin 18:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archived

message: 60 minutes said that 17.5 million were killied in the holocaust and since 60 minutes knows what they are talking about it should be changed
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/14/60minutes/main2267927.shtml
Rollaround 09:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The report says that the documents "hold the records of 17 million victims", including slave labourers, political prisoners etc. Among them, it states, are the people who worked in Schindler's factory. Of course, we know they survived, so the 17 million is not the number of deaths, merely the number of people whose names are recorded in the documents, many of whom survived. Paul B 17:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the show anyone can see it 17.5 million is the numbers of DEATHS, stop trying to white wash the nazi crimes. Rollaround 11:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whitewash the Nazi crimes? Excuse me??? "Anyone" can't see from the link you provided that 17.5 million is the number of deaths. I did not see the show, but the site you posted makes it absolutely clear that the number refers to the people who are listed in the documents. In any case, not all deaths in the war were the result of the holocaust. It's also clear from the comments posted on the site that the show was not very accurate in several respects. Paul B 11:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What some poster writes on the internet page about the show does not matter, all that matters is what they said on 60 minutes which unlike you and any other person has a burden of proof if they were to say a lie then they would be sued and they would lose their license, if you read real history books you can see that the numbers are correct. 60 minuts has real reporters and can dig up real information. The number 17.5 million is of who died in the holocaust. Do not forget that the total civilian losses of Poland was 6 million and the Soviet Union 20 million plus around 10 million military dead so 17.5 million dying in the holocaust is a very correct number Rollaround 11:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read some books. 60 minutes is not a very authoritative source. Historians take priority over TV journalists. Paul B 12:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rollaround, just be careful. The 6 million figure for Poland does include 3 million Polish Jews. There is some overlapping here. I think the Nikzor Project mentions something around 11 million (6 million Jews and 5 million non-Jews). Most historians believe that this number of 5 milion non-Jews is quite a low estimate (specially considering Russia), so 17 million is not too far from an acceptable figure, regarding orders of magnitude. The problem, however, is to define WHO is a victim of the Holocaust. If it is only civilians, then the soviet soldiers who were gassed in the camps would not be included? Should we include the Russian peasants who starved when the Germans invaded? Or were those only civilian victims of conventional war, as it happened in previous wars? Historians tend to very careful in general estimates for this reason. I think if we can find a written source for a 17.5 number of deaths, it could be included, provided that the text makes clear it is an estimate, and mentions the problems of quoting any figure.Ninarosa 06:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  I do not know, due to my ignorance, of existence of any Wannsee Conference type documents, but, off the top of my head, the following groups faced total extermination as well:  Roma (gypsies), homosexuals, communists, people with mental deficiencies, etc.  Also, a whole family of ethnicities, namely Slavs, were considered "Untermenschen" (sp?) and were often discriminated, conscripted for Slave labor, cleansed, etc.  Goliath74 21:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: among those, however, the Jews were the larger singular group, and the propaganda associated to them makes the Jewish, the Roma and the people with mental deficiencies, very central to the idea of the Holocaust. There are the documents for the T4, with directive to eliminate people with mental deficiencies, and there were documents agains the Roma, as well.Ninarosa 06:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, but first you have to show it. You don't. Paul B 14:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 60 minutes

message: Hello all. I've recently checked out a book about the Holocaust and have been using information to cite anything I can find. However, I'd like to ask a question.Please see the Experiments section, the last sentence. It lists a bunch of concentration camps that once were not cited, but I already did. However, in my book, it did not state specifically in the book those camp names, but it did say so in the Index section of the book. Simply, the camps weren't majorly stated (as in their own articles in the books, only in small excerpts, such as timelines). See, let's use Dachau as an example:
Dachau (Germany)
:concentration camp 119,
:138, 144, 191, 193, 495
:555-56, 665, 696
administration tried, 634
bread distributed at, 634
commandant of, 428
Communists sent to, 59
corpses in, 609
.....and it goes on and on. So, what I'm asking is... are those cites okay? Again, they do come out in the index. But they are not stated majorly as in their own pages and stuff, just mentioned in those pages above (for example, page 119 is mentioned in a section about a Jew named Martin Niemöler who was sent to concentration camps like Dachau and Sachenhausen). Thanks in advance. Uh, I hope I haven't overwhelmed you with questions or confused you, I just want to know whether I'm doing the right thing or not. Cheers! --♥Tohru Honda13♥Talk 01:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations. 

message: in the victims section of this article, there is a photo of a pile of corpses.
i was just wondering if color photography was available at the time--STANE 02:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stane,click on the image. It is not exactly a color photography, but comes from "a historical political poster, button, flier or banner". Probably the color was added later. But I agree that there should be a reference.Ninarosa 07:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  color photo of corpses?? 

message: The 6,000,000 total dead in German-run concentration camps is a combination of Jews, Germans, Gypsies, Homosexuals, etc. It is not accurate to assume all 6M were Jewish. I think the article should reflect this information. Unfortunately, I don't think there will ever be an exact total for the carnage of WWII. Rough estimates will always have to be pulled in and analyzed and a "best guess" prepared. As such, we shouldn't rush to forget the other peoples who died. Please advise before I change the article--Legomancer 04:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Legomancer, the estimates for the death toll of Jews during the holocaust is between 5 and 7 million--and they are NOT all in concentration camps. See Hillberg or Wolfgang Benz (both are listed in the references), or here http://www.holocaust-history.org/~rjg/deaths.shtml I don't have the numbers for the deaths in the camps (combining Jews, Germans, Poles, Roma & Sinti, communists, etc), but that is not what the commonly quoted figure of 6 millions refers to. --Ninarosa 01:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: (159.105.80.63 please sign you comments ). I am afraid you are wrong. I can consult Hilberg directly if you want, but if I recall correctly, the death toll of little over 1 million deaths is for AUSCHWITZ ALONE. His total death toll is 5,109,822 (which is of course a sum of recorded numbers and estimates).  I don't remember Hilberg giving any figure for an estimate of the total surviving Jewish population, and I would thank you if you could give me a concrete reference for that, with page number. But I found this high number to be quite unlikely, since there are not this many Jews today. I would appreciate also to see a reference for the World Center of Contemporary Jewish Documentation with the figures you quote. I would be quite surprised.--Ninarosa 19:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Maths 

message: It is a globaly documented fact, in both film, books, photos and eye-witness accounts; so it can't be dined! The holocaust did happen!
--Lilidor 05:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have useful information, queries or proposals, add them. Please don't bore us with asinine remarks. Paul B 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Apology accepted. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Check out Holocaust (resources), Saintrotter.  --GHcool 19:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Check out Historical method, Saintrotter.  --GHcool 20:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It did happen!

message: I apologize if this has come up before.  Currently, the article states "The Nazi Holocaust had several characteristics that, taken together, distinguish it from other genocides in history."  Obviously, all genocides have had features that distinguish them from other genocides.  The uniqueness of the holocaust is an issue that has been relatively controversial within genocide studies.  If we are going to make the claim that the holocaust was especially unique (rather than just describe the attributes that made it unique) it seems that we should reference the fact that this is a controversial claim. Ethan Mitchell 23:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I partially agree. If we want to be picky, every historical event is unique. But the claim is not that the Holocaust is "unique". The sentence is preparing to list the characteristics that distinguish THIS genocide from others--in the entry for the Armenians, there will be listed the characteristics that distinguish THAT genocide from others. --Ninarosa 23:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fair enough, but the philosophical/political/theological uniqueness of the holocaust is a fairly well-known point of contention within genocide studies, and this sentence easily reads as supporting one POV.  Ethan Mitchell 04:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Even if the number of 6,000,000 is true (but it is very doubtful), the Russians in the same time have lost about 30 millions, 1/3 of whom were civilians. So what is so unique in Jewish Holocaust except capability of Jewish community to PR this story?--Igor "the Otter" 19:56, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uniqueness

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
====Survey - in support of the move====
#Support as nom.- Bssc81 04:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support as nom.- Bssc81 04:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the move

message: #No. "Holocaust" is a generic term, especially nowadays; it's used for a wide range of horrors. "The Holocaust" means one thing and one thing only. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the move

message: The Greeks have been using the term 'holocaust' at least since the 19th century to refer to the destruction or extermination of Greek communities. It should be briefly included in the main article as part of the background to the word and the emergence of the concept. Politis 22:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Holocaust of Greeks

message: I agree, we need calm talk here!
--86.29.251.164 17:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Calm down friends, no one wants to monoplize ther term holocaust :-)

message: I think some elements from this article on the changing of the Holocaust Day in G-B to a Palestinian Genocide day should be talked about. People should be aware of "dhimmitude" capitulation from governing bodies in the West and the rewriting of history by Radical Islam, like portrayed in this article:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/015049.phpVincentG 22:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh for heaven's sake, it's a small suburb, not "governing bodies in the West". What do you mean by G-B? Paul B 22:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go look at the user page of our charming sarcasm-merchant Saintrotter. You we see that in his mental world the holocaust is promoted by liberal-leftists to distract attention from the dastardly deeds of Stalin! So is it the left who promote it it deny it? I don't think the anti left and anti-Muslim rants on jihadwatch constitute reliable evidence. The main story concerns a Spanish suburb. After scrolling down there is one from a reader about a short-lived decision in Bolton to replace a Holocaust memorial day with a Genocide memorial day that would be more inclusive. Whether that decision was right or wrong it certainly does not consitute Holocaust denial in any form. It was just an attempt accomodate demads from various groups that "their" victimhood be included. I'm guessing that by "capitulation against Muslims" you mean "capitulation to Muslims". Tell that to Muslim communities in the UK. 08:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This is page is about The holocaust. Paul B 08:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust day transformation 

message: On the opening picture could editors kindly refrain from linking things that are going to turn out red; perhaps you did it inadvertantly but it looks rather unseemly, thanks.
Ahadland 22:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Red Links

message: Is't this thread geting a bit to 'so what about the holocaust'. Are there Holocaust deniers among us? 
It's always in nead of these tags.
--86.29.240.170 18:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I have noticed a weird inconsistence in the source for Romanian Holocaust figures.
In the first page of the document, the total numbers are given: However, the Commission concludes that between 280,000 and 380,000 Romanian and Ukrainian Jews were murdered or died during the Holocaust in Romania and the territories under its control.. On the next page, part of the same section of the text (Determining the Number of Victims), the following numbers are given in a bit more detailed paragraph: Between 45,000 and 60,000 Jews were killed in Bessarabia and Bukovina by Romanian and German troops in 1941. Between 105,000 and 120,000 deported Romanian Jews died as a result of the expulsions to Transnistria. In Transnistria between 115,000 and 180,000 indigenous Jews were killed, especially in Odessa and the counties of Golta and Berezovka. At least 15,000 Jews from the Regat were murdered in the Iasi pogrom and as a result of other anti-Jewish measures..
Now let's do some math. 
45,000 - 60,000 = killed in Bessarabia and Bukovina in 1941
105,000 - 120,000 = died as a result of expulsions in Transnistria
115,000 - 180,000 = died in Transnistria
 
15,000 = died in Regat (Wallachia and Moldavia)
-----------------
280,000 - 360,000
It seems there is still a difference of 0 - 20,000 victims up to the total number of victims concluded by this Commission. This difference looks very weird, as it cannot be a missing estimation (the lower bound of the range is 0!). Most probably it is an error (typing or computing). Whatever the cause, it undermines this source's reliability. I believe it would be nice to use some other reputable sources (e.g. historians like Radu Ioanid), if anyone has them. Daizus 13:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what the problem is. The lower estimate (45000 + 105000 + 11500 + 15000) adds up to 280000. The upper estimate (60000 + 120000 + 180000 + 15000) adds up to 375000 (not 360000). OK, that's slightly less than 380000, but not by much. It's not significant since the 15000 figure is said to be a minimum ("at least 15000"). I don't see any real inconsistency here, at least not of such significance that a dispute tag is deserved. Paul B 19:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, my bad. I have added it here some days ago and noticed no response and that's why I have added the tag in the main page. I'll remove the tag. Daizus 19:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent maths in the source for Romanian Holocaust 

message: What the bloody hell does that have to do with the Holocaust? I suspect vandalism. --132.69.234.73 14:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "World domination"(???) in the "see also" section. 

message: It would be respectful to acknowledge the drastic number of losses suffered by the Polish people as a whole.  An average of one in every five Poles lost their lives at the hands of the Nazis.  It's about time the rest of the world becomes aware of the devastating losses incurred by Poland as a nation, within a few years she had lost nearly 10% of her citizenry!  The fact that statements about Polish losses are always followed with an estimate of the amount of Jewish citizens that might include is a deeply disrespectful marginalization of the Polish people.  If it must be insisted upon to continually specify the percentage of lost lives that were possibly Jewish, it must also be recognized that the hatred of the Nazis was not bound by religion alone, and that a great number of the Polish victims of the holocaust were also Christian and many other denominations of faith .
--pixiequix 00:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin, I hate to say "I told ya", but I told you! Ok,  I DON'T hate to say it...  Pixiequix, please see above the discussion about the Lead. Without minimizing for a second the violence suffered by Poles, both Jews and Christians, the new lead acknowledges that some historians consider that the name Holocaust  refers most particularly to the genocide of Jews. this IS polemic. I wonder  if there should be an article on victims of Nazi persecution, not only lumped with "others" or "non-Jews". On the other hand, what do you propose? To include an item in particular on the effects on Poland? There is already something that could be expanded in []--Ninarosa 01:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Polish People As a Whole 

message: Just clarify why I included the word Sinti among the victims: Roma and Sinti are two different Romani groups, and amongst the most affected by the Nazi persecution. They are not the same group, although they are equally identified as "Gypsies".  This is particularly important because of the jazz musician Django Reinhardt, who wrote a song about the Porrajmos, and he was Sinti, but not Roma. Mentioning only hte Roma would be like considering  that all Slavs are Russian.--Ninarosa 01:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roma and Sinti 

message: Hey! Please remove this vandalism: . Thanks --80.219.228.176 04:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism from January 7 

message: My view on he holocaust is a view not from that of someone religious, but just another person, although I do feel strongly about it.
I feel it was an aweful thing,that anyone could do such a thing to just innocent people. Why would they want to be responsible for all those deaths, for power?
I think thatanyone who does something like 'The Holocaust' could not be on this earth, as they are just the wrong type of people for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.193.136 (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Holocaust by a Yr9 pupil UK 

message: I have split this article from Panerai, expanded and referenced, and adjusted the relevant template to point there. It can still use more editing.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ponary massacre]]

message: Why is it not on the article page? Aor 01:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV Banner

message: The word churban is not yiddish it is a hebrew word meaning destruction, from the word cherev (kherev) meaning sword. This artices wrongly claims it is yiddish. 81.86.121.50 19:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article claims that Khurban is Yiddish, not Churbn —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ahadland1234 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of the word khurvan - Churban  

message: I tried to fix fmting of this page but so far I can't figure out what is wrong: note the amount of blank space and edit buttons below. Any idea? ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks better now. ←Humus sapiens ну? 01:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blank space

message: here. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 20:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note: Please see the village pump policy discussion regarding the title of this article 

message: The Beginning of the article says this...
"The Holocaust is the term generally used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews during World War II," 
The other 5 million who were killed should be added to the introductory sentence.
I realized they are mentioned later, but I feel it dishonors the other 5 million who died.  I myself am Jewish, and feel that adding the other 5 million who were killed in necessary and appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.177.206.71 (talk)
 
:I agree.  CeilingCrash 08:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've re-ordered the lead section. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 18:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning of the article 

message: of courese they had to have been more than six million killed in t he holocaust —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.108.79.51 (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  the their had to be more killed  

message: I am very surprised to learn there was not even one single judgment confirming genocide against the Jews during Nuremberg trials,
Here are sentences handed down to 22 accused:
http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/nurembg/NuremJudgement.htm
This confirms that the Srebrenica Genocide is the only legally established genocide in Europe.
Bosniak 18:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sadly, Holocaust was not legally established as Genocide 

message: The explanation for removing the link (www.deathcamps.org/occupation/ghettolist.htm} list is that it is a "discredited site".  How about and explanation and references?  The site appears to be useful and reference link to it can be found on the British Academy Portal which is usually a very reliable source.Joel Mc 14:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The team that put together the deathcamps.org site appears to have split acrimoniously. Both factions have been reverting back and forth, adding or removing the hyphen (for several months, across many pages). The person reverting to the old (hyphenless) version explains here:, the person adding the new, hyphenated links explains on his blog here . I haven't picked through all the details, and a cursory look at a few pages on both versions of the ARC site didn't turn up any significant differences. It's vaguely irritating to have these reverts going on, but the site did appear to be a useful resource. I'd like reliable info on what is happening if anyone has it. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the explanation and the link .  They certainly could have used a marriage counselor early on. I raised the issue as I would anytime that I see a label "discredited site" with no evidence at all.  I can't say that I really understand their little spat, but I find no evidence that discredits the page which is linked, i.e. the list of ghettos: www.deathcamps.org/occupation/ghettolist.htm.  That seems to me a useful piece of information.  Perhaps a compromise would be to revert to the link and put in a footnote which gives the link to the holocaust controversies site indicating that the overall site  has come in for criticism.  Then users can judge for themselves the bona fides of the site.  It doesn't really seem to be our role to make a judgement at least in this case whether a site is discredited or not. Joel Mc 02:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: For a "point by point" (but obviously still rather difficult for some) explanation please look here.--Sergey Romanov 11:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Aktion Reinhard link

message: The nazis exsterminated 1/6 of Jews, but they went after homosexuals to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.216.30.157 (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1/3 of the Jews. Also why would one connect these two phrases with the word "but"? There is no a contradiction whatsoever. Some of the vicitims even shared both identities. gidonb 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no evidence of an attempt to exterminate homosexuals. Paul B 17:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  holocaust 

message: I removed some of the detail about how the Final Solution came about, because it did seem too detailed for the lead. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead section now contains no detail at all about how the Holocaust came about, and duplicates some material I moved to the etymology section in the first sentence. This has lead to a less-readable start, and leaves someone who reads only the first section with no clue to the process by which genocide was conducted. I added the detail after some discussion above in which several editors said that this sort of overview was needed, and the resulting lead section was not excessively long. It also had links to key aspects of the genocide embedded in the text. For these reasons I would like to revert to this version. Thoughts? Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel it's too much detail for the lead. Also, the way the other version is written (describing all the victims in the first para, with numbers, and then in the second para starting with "not everyone counts all the other victims) -- it feels a bit disjointed. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've tried to tweak it a little, but the problem with it is that it's a little simplistic. I know things have to be simplified for the lead, but this seems to go too far in that direction. I think the lead is better without it. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

text: "Ahadland raises one valid issue: there are undoubtedly readers who would like to be able to get a good overview of the subject without having to read the entire article."
I don't believe there is any such thing as perfection, so no doubt there will be additional tweaks to improve on what we've accomplished. But I think it's in excellent shape right now. If there was a competition for "three-paragraph Holocaust summaries", this would be a very strong contender, IMO. 
Cgingold 14:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: I removed the discussion of etymology, brief as it was, because it seriously overburdened the lede sentence. I'm concerned that the average reader, seeing that passage (with all of its unfamiliar foreign alphabet symbols), could suffer "glazing over of the eyes" before they've even finished reading the intro to the article. I made a point of directing readers to the etymology section, which follows immediately after the intro.
I also made a point of specifying the ethnic groups that comprised the Soviet POWs, since their genocide was in fact ethnic in character, and provided good links for those groups and some other previously unlinked terms in the 2nd paragraph. And I added some crucial details that were missing from the 3rd paragraph.
I think the intro has benefitted immensely from all of the work that has gone into it in the last 2 weeks, and I believe we have successfully addressed the issue that was identified in the course of the earlier discussions regarding User Ahadland's infobox:
:"Ahadland raises one valid issue: there are undoubtedly readers who would like to be able to get a good overview of the subject without having to read the entire article."
I don't believe there is any such thing as perfection, so no doubt there will be additional tweaks to improve on what we've accomplished. But I think it's in excellent shape right now. If there was a competition for "three-paragraph Holocaust summaries", this would be a very strong contender, IMO. 
Cgingold 14:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of etymology & other changes

message: Can someone please give citation to the info in the Greek section of the article since none exists. A better article on what happened in Thessalonki to Greek Jews is covered in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Greece. Jtpaladin 13:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek Jew section 

message: The following paragraph was removed from the "Death squads" section of the article. This genocidal episode was essentially a Serbian/Croatian affair, growing out of deeply-rooted historic animosity. 
:Serbs were victims of an extermination policy of Croat NDH since this Nazi puppet state was formed in 1941. The murders took many forms: burning of live Serbs forced into churches; slaughter of Serbs by small death squads, often numbering only three, called "black threes", who rampaged by night through villages in which dogs were first poisoned.  The squads filled foiba pits with still-living Serbs, often connected by barbed wire, and practiced extremely cruel methods of torture and execution such as gouging eyes and cutting salted necks. They also nailed guts of slaughtered victims to the roofs. Extermination in Jasenovac camp existed since its onset in 1941, at the time when Germans had not yet started their systematic genocide, and it has appalled even the SS, though soon enough they were organizing systematic extermination in their camps too.
I don't think there's a strong rationale for including it in this article -- though perhaps a one-sentence mention directing readers to the main article would be appropriate. Cgingold 12:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, there already is a one-sentence mention in the "Death toll" section; I added a link to Ustaše#Genocide there & in the "See also" section. Cgingold 15:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbian genocide in Croatia 

message: Rather than go back and forth between Nazis and Germans, i.e.:  "workload placed on them by the Nazis and due to the lack of food" why not just say "workload placed on them and due to lack of food" certainly Nazis did it and Germans did it as well as some who were neither Nazis nor Germans...Joel Mc 17:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Workload on Children

message: Can we please add the word 'allegedly' to the opening paragraphs, as while a few Jews may have been euthanaised, the number 6,000,000 is the source of much debate. Some encyclopaedias from the immediate post-war era recorded 30,000 while some later recorded 4,000,000. Six million seems to be a rather recent phenomenon. 
An article like this is always going to be full of bias, in the Jewish favor, and adding a few words like this may help to bring it back into equilibrium. --Hayden5650 12:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My oh my. So much nastiness concealed in so many inoffensive-sounding remarks. "euthanaised" [sic]??? "in the Jewish favor"??? Oh, please. "a rather recent phenomenon"?? - Hardly; this figure has been widely used for decades. If you're sincerely concerned about this, please note the use of the word "approximately" in the intro, and the more detailed discussion in the section "Death toll". But given your citation of the very early 30,000 figure, I find it hard to credit your remarks with sincere concern. Sorry pal, but this smacks of Holocaust denial, imo. Cgingold 20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No POV Or Bias Is a Wiki Policy, So Let's Implement It

message: I was always of the impression that persecution began before the Nazis even came to power. Before Hitler became chancellor, the SA were attacking political opponents and inidividual Jews. I think the date should be changed from 1938 to 1933 --HadzTalk 13:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've retitled that section 'Increasing Persecution (1938-1941). Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, try Google. Results 1 - 100 of about 1,070,000 for holocaust shoes. Gzuckier 13:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The heaps of shoes have become a much used and powerful symbol of the Holocaust - the Imperial War Museum used that image for an exhibition poster a few years ago, IIRC. Shoes were also important according to Primo Levi, an Auschwitz survivor, as badly fitting shoes caused blisters, which caused limping, which made an inmate unfit for work, which meant they were gassed. (This is somewhere in his book If this is a man.) HTH. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Bergen-Belsen concentration camp was not an extermination camp; no reason to expect she would be gassed there, since nobody was. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: As its title hints, The Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva July 27, 1929 did not discuss 15 year old girls or other civilians, (other than "Individuals who follow armed forces without directly belonging thereto ... military support contractors and civilian war correspondents etc."). You are no doubt thinking of the Fourth Geneva Convention, "published on August 12, 1949, at the end of a conference held in Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949". While your argument that the Nazis inadvertently managed to wipe out the Jews of Europe due to their adherence to the requirements of this treaty of the future is certainly novel, I feel that it is not likely to win widespread acceptance. Gzuckier 19:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Persecution began in 1938?

message: see Matica slovenská and a reference . Thanks. --Mt7 12:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust denial or not? 

message: As I look through the history of the Holocaust article edits, I see a lot of one "term": Holohoax. I tried to see what article would come up if I searched for this on Wikipedia, and I get this article, the Holocaust. Shouldn't it redirect to the article Holocaust denial? --Wassamatta 02:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirecting

message: User:Samsonite07 has been consistently adding LGBT-related links and categories to many articles, often inappropriately, and using misleading edit summaries. I am concerned that his/her edits to this page are part of a POV crusade, and undue weight. There is also the problem that many of his edits seem nonsensical: talking about LGBT in WW2 seems anachronistic, for example, and his edits to the paragraph about Nazi antisemitism have changed the title of the section to be about Nazi antisemitism and homohobia, yet the paragraph body itself remains stolidly about Nazi antisemitism only.
I do not presume to know enough about this topic, therefore I'd like to ask neutral editors of this article to review Samsonite07's edits. Thank you! --Ashenai 11:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the 'Jews and Judaism' template needs to be there when we already have 'antisemitism'. It's lengthy and doesn't touch upon the holocaust except in one regard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samsonite07 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Samsonite07 is a suspected sock of blocked User:DavidYork71. Merbabu 11:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LGBT POV crusade concerns 

message: Hi. Since the Hebrew term, Ha-Shoah, is used in the introduction, the Romani term "Porajmos" (literally "devouring") should also be included.
70.53.193.16 15:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porajmos 

message: I deleted the Project:LGBT Banner, because I think that if there's no indication of this being part of Wikiproject:Judaism (which it is), than Wikiproject:LGBT really has no need for a banner. Feel free to reprimand me. Bentobias 18:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider yourself reprimanded :)  I've put it back, but in the "This article belongs to..." box on the right.  Which, by the way, is where the WikiProject Jewish History banner is as well. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be a better place for it, although I don't see it there now -- if it's moved I didn't do it this time. Bentobias 04:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LGBT Banner

message: The word 'khurbn' is used in Yiddish but it is originally in Hebrew, pronounced in modern Hebrew: khur-ban, the first part being emphasized. There is no need to check in a dictionary, I am a native Hebrew speaker and know some Yiddish as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaplan84 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: Other groups were also persecuted and killed by the regime, including some 220,000 Sinti and Roma (see Porajmos), as well as the disabled (see Action T4), homosexuals, Communists and other political prisoners, Jehovah's Witnesses, Polish citizens, and Soviet POWs (Ukrainians, Russians and Byelorussians).[2][3] Many scholars do not include these groups in the scope of the Holocaust[citation needed], defining it as the genocide of European Jewry, or what the Nazis called the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" ("Die Endlösung der Judenfrage"). Taking into account all of the victims of Nazi persecution, the death toll rises considerably: estimates generally place the total number of victims at 9 to 11 million.[4]
Can we please get rid of this? The Holocaust was a mass extermination of "undesirables" by the Nazi government, carried out against Jews, Communists, Homosexuals, the Handicapped, and anyone else they perceived as inferior, for varying reasons, and that's the position held by pretty much every historian of German history. I feel like this passage implies that the vague "many scholars" have some sort of pro-Jewish bias causing them to ignore the deaths of millions of other human beings at the hands of the Nazis. Alluding to "many scholars" ignoring non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust and giving no specific examples serves only to undermine the facts of the Holocaust and implying that "many" of its scholars do not agree on them, which is not the truth. --Zackgidding 06:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Zackgidding on this. Bentobias 19:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pls see my comment in the section 'Holocaust "used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews"', below. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the function of this passage? 

message: The Roma death toll cites the most conservative estimate out there. On the Porrajmos page it states that estimates range from 200,000-2 million, can that be added to the introduction of the article? 76.167.178.204 21:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Roma death toll

message: Many, many people were killed in the Holocaust, and at least half of the total deaths were non-Jews. I say we rephrase the first paragraph to something about the Holocaust being the systematic extermination of certain groups, or something like that because to say it refers to those six million Jews who were killed is dishonest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.165.74 (talk) 22:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some academics use the term 'the Holocaust' to refer to the destruction of the European Jews. Only. This is not to deny that the Nazis persecuted other groups. One example is Zygmunt Bauman's Modernity and the Holocaust. Others argue that the policy of extermination was directed solely at the Jews, and that their treatment was unique (eg Guenter Lewy's The Nazi Persecution of the Gypsies). An encyclopedia can't take sides and rule that the persecution of certain groups was, or was not, a part of the Holocaust.  We have to report that the term is primarily associated with one group, the Jews, but that the Nazis persecuted other groups as well. That is the balance I and other editors have tried to strike in the lead para. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 22:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This may be true, but I don't think Wikipedia using the term "The Holocaust" to refer to the entire extermination by the Nazis rather than the extermination of the Jews poses a threat to neutral point of view or constitutes "taking a side", and I think adding a statement about a perceived disparity in the use of the term "The Holocaust" in academia does nothing to enrich the article and serves only to attack its credibility, in however small a way. There are historians who conform to both usages of "The Holocaust": As a specifically Jewish catastrophe accompanied by the simultaneous extermination of other Nazi "undesirables" (the latter of which is referred to by another name), and as a catch-all phrase for the entire Nazi extermination of Jews, Roma, Sinti, Communists, and others. I ask, what is the harm in using the latter definition for the sake of simplicity and clarity, when the alternative is to open the door to the further categorization and fracture of an event that, quite frankly, requires no further dissection? --Zackgidding 03:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust "used to describe the killing of approximately six million European Jews" 

message: i am doing a school report about the holocause that killed jews.  i trying to find refenernces to these  6 million jews that where killed i cant find any thing, only proof i found was from red cross that estimated about 150,000
but 6 million is a very large number, there would need to have been a gas plant right in the place of termination, how could there be 6 million?  i know of anne frank but thats only one? help me please!
:Please access any number of history books. I recommend Martin Gilbert's book on the Holocaust. It's a hard read due to the subject matter, but it's a good one. What do mean by the rest of your post? References? Gas plant? Darkmind1970 08:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  school report