Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 7

message: As a matter of comparison, I added in the Gay men section the phrase that onanism was also considered harmful to the Reich. In fact, I rememebre reading about an episode from SS/SD internal quarrels that one official was filmed while he was onanized, withe the goal of discrediting, but it missed the target: the verdict was to find him a wife, a Party member in good standing. Does anyone remember this? mikka (t) 16:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No offence is intended, but can I suggest that a vague memory of something you read isn't a verifiable source? We should leave this out until someone can confirm it. DJ Clayworth 17:11, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A vague memory is about the particular incident. But I do not really insist here; it is but a tangential support of trhe topic of the section.  mikka (t)  03:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Homosexality section

message: "remove unsourced POV; violent conflicts had been going on since the 20s, and the claim that Israel is a "tragic legacy" of the Holocaust is POV]"
What exactly is being challenged? I just added a source of the article that pretty much ellaborates on that last edit. Also the article says "instability in the Middle East...is another major tragic legacy of the Holocaust", not " Israel is a 'tragic legacy' of the Holocaust is POV" as you claim. --Vizcarra 19:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about?  You added no source to the article; point out the edit in which you did so.  As for the insertion, it is factually wrong, since conflicts between Jews and Arabs were happening all through the 1920s, 30s, and 40s, they didn't break out after Jewish refugees started immigrating after the Holocaust.  As well, attributing current Middle East instability to the Holocaust is brazen POV.  And finally, this article is about The Holocaust, not the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Let's try not to have that conflict spill over into every article. Jayjg (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true. for some reason my source did not show. I will add it next time. You have to spend more time reading the edits and less time reverting them. The first time, "instability Middle East" did not imply "Israel". Now #2 (Violent conflicts quickly broke out between Jews and Arabs, and conflicts continued after the establishment of Israel in 1948.) That does not imply that there weren't any conflicts between Jews and Arabs, but that conflicts arose after the settlement of Israel between Jews and Arabs. But I won't add that after tomorrow, I won't fall into a 3RR trap a second time.
#3 You deleted "The resulting instability in the Middle East, which still continues to this day, is another major tragic legacy of the Holocaust." which is, obviously, related to the Holocaust. I will re-add that tomorrow as well if no opposition is shown. --Vizcarra 20:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: **Opposition is shown. The Middle East as a whole was utterly unstable before the Holocaust; the Holocaust exacerbated the situation, certainly. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Regarding #3, the allegation that the "resulting instability in the Middle East" can be attributed to the influx of Holocaust survivors, and that this alleged phenomenon is "another major tragic legacy of the Holocaust", are both POVs.  At a minimum, they would have to be sourced, and shown to be significant views. Jayjg (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust&diff=21233005&oldid=21226452]

message: First of all, I deem it very good that in the English wikipedia, all victims of the Holocaust are addressed. In the German wikipedia, it is held that "Holocaust" only attributes the Jewish victims; that has the "nice" effect to relativise the other victims, so that only the Jews must be remembered.
Two groups of victims I do not see: The "Roman Catholic" - no catholic was murdered just for his/her faith - and the Esperanto speakers. Esperanto was forbidden, but so was hearing allied radio broadcasts. I would rather subsumize that under "political dissidents" (which was also true for protestant people like Dietrich Bonnhöfer), as those people were prosecuted for their actions, not their race as were the gypsies, the Jews and the Slaws. --Dingo 22:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I assert that there were not particularly many Esperanto speakers to begin with in Europe, much less many killed for speaking it.  Certainly not enough to merit inclusion in the introduction. Jayjg (talk) 05:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right, but I'd still like to find some numbers. Esperanto was particularly popular in Eastern Europe -- but I'd imagine there was considerable overlap between Jews and Esperantists. Oh well. It doesn't interest me quite enough to do any more than a bit of web research (which has turned out to interesting but so far unquantified.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victims of the Holocaust 

message: I don't want this to be a competition in victimhood, but does anyone else find the leading image kind of unimposing or am I missing something here? The inmates on the picture are all males - very likely to be POWs -  without clear identification, and their circumstances are unknown. Clearly their fate was not that of the Hogan's Heroes, but I feel that an image like this ((c) USHMM/State Archives of the Russian Fed) would better represent 1.5 million Jewish children and other totally innocent victims of The Holocaust. Just an example, I am sure we can come up with a better alternative. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 11:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The leading image 

message: (Sorry about this edit summary, I pressed "Enter" by mistake.)
"The Holocaust was Nazi's systematic..." is not exactly accurate. First it was what it was and later in history it was called "The Holocaust". --Vizcarra 23:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's actually clear enough for our immediate purposes (lead sentence-wise), those qualifications can be made later on, whereas for the lead, we should aim for simplicity of exposition unless it is strikingly reductionistic, which I see no indication it is at present. El_C 00:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is clear enough for you, someone who is somewhat familiar with the concept but it may not be for many who will read the article to learn from it rathen than to edit it. "The Holocaust is the name applied to" as opposed to "The Holocaust was" does not add extremely complications to the sentence and reduces the possibility that someone will mistake "Holocaust" as being an official Nazi term.--Vizcarra 00:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. Actually, my comprehension and command of the English language is overrated (as in assessing the level of complication, for ex.), so I'm interested to learn what other editors think about the addition. El_C 00:22, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the definition came from that of the United States Holocaust Museum: "The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime and its collaborators." --Goodoldpolonius2 00:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is understandable that anybody familiar with the subject of the Holocaust (such as those involved with the Holocaust Museum would not need clarification as to the origin of the term and would never confuse the Jewish name for that of the Nazi name for the Holocaust-related activities. Wikipedia should not be ethno-centric or center around a particular place or group of places. --Vizcarra 22:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. I'm okay with "The Holocaust is the name given," unless other editors object.  Goodoldpolonius2 22:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Holocaust? 

message: 83.139.72.251, can you find one source that indicates the Bleiburg massacre was part of the Holocaust?  It was a tragic event, but, like the horrific Katyn Massacre, it was not part of the systematic genocide conducted by the Axis, and is not considered part of the Holocaust.  Further, you watered down the language on the Ustashe's role, making the paragraph on Croatian participation in the Holocaust instead a paragraph on the casualties and conflict in Yugoslavia during the War. So, can you can back you claim that the attacks on Croats and the Bleiburg massacre is generally considered part of the Holocaust? The US Holocaust Museum does not include it . --Goodoldpolonius2 22:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Str1977, I may not understand your points clearly, but feel free to clarify. The Holocaust is usually considered to be the systematic persecution of the Jews (and other targeted minorities) by Nazi Germany and their allies.  All sources include the Croatian mass murders and deportations against the Jews and Roma as part of the Holocaust, and many sources include the similar actions agains the Serbs.  No source I have seen includes the Beiburg massacre, or the other attacks against the Croats at the end of the war. That doesn't mean that there isn't a place for these war crimes in Wikipedia, but I don't think it is the Holocaust article.  --Goodoldpolonius2 01:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, Polonius, I don't think we disagree here. I just wanted to say that the term "Holocaust" is restricted to the crimes you mentioned. If others committed atrocities at that time it is not part of the H. by definition, as gruesome these other acts might be. All right, now? Str1977 13:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification.  So, you would support reverting back to my older version, rather than the one by the anonymous user, below?  --Goodoldpolonius2 13:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I understand your concerns, and the Croats may have indeed suffered before and during the war at the hands of the Serbs, and afterwards as well.  However, this article is about the Holocaust, not a place to justify why the Croats collaborated with the Nazis.  Even eaving aside the issue of the Serbs, your edits serve to obscure the fact that the Ustasha are the ones that worked with the Nazis to kill Jews and Roma, you totally remove that aspect from the text, so that it is a list of casualties ("Jews and Roma were killed" along with Croats and Serbs).  Even worse, how can you justify the change from "The Ustase also deported 7,000 more Jews to German extermination camps" to your sentence "More then 7,000 people were deported to German extermination camps" -- removing all reference to who did the deporation and who was deported?  You should feel free to discuss the issues of oppression of the Croats by Serbs in the appropriate articles (perhaps Yugoslavia?) but you should not remove references to historical events because you want to make the Croats look better.  You are going to need to show a scholarly source that shows that some group of historians believe that the Bleiburg Massacre, etc. was part of the Holocaust to continue making an argument here. You may also want to sign your comments with four tildes, like this: ~~~~ --Goodoldpolonius2 13:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The sources provided say 7,000 Jews were deported by Croatia to the death camps ("Based on a German agreement with its Croatian Axis ally, around 7,000 Croatian Jews were deported to Auschwitz-Birkenau"), do you have any information to the contrary?  As for the rest of the material, you seem to be avoiding the issue: the Utase regime collaborated with the Nazis in the Holocaust, rounding up Jews and Roma and then putting them in camps or deporting them.  It may very well be that other groups did the same, all you need to do is to give a source where this was the case, and we can add it to the article; as it is the article already obviously covers the Romanian and German troops that participated in the deportations from Belgrade.  Also, as for Bleiburg, please show a reference if you want to include it as the Holocaust, it was a horrible massacre, but like the Katyn massacre and others, it is not generally considered related to the Holocaust in any way.  I am not trying to minimize Croatian suffering, but whitewashing participation in the Holocaust is also not correct. The answer to your objections is not to remove all of the information about the Ustase simply because you want to do that. If you have additional info, provide sources, please. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bleiburg Massacre and Croatia