Revision as of 09:24, 16 December 2005 editStr1977 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers59,123 editsm rv spamming← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 08:20, 31 December 2024 edit undoRainsage (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,017 edits →Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 December 2024 |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Skip to bottom}} |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=b}} |
|
|
{{tmbox |
|
|
|image=] |
|
|
|text=<big>'''WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES'''</big>{{pb}} |
|
|
] (9 May 2021):{{pb}} |
|
|
The Arbitration Committee advises that administrators may impose "reliable-source consensus required" as a discretionary sanction on all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. On articles where "reliable-source consensus required" is in effect, when a source that is not a high quality source (an article in a peer-reviewed scholarly journals, an academically focused book by a reputable publisher, and/or an article published by a reputable institution) is added and subsequently challenged by reversion, no editor may reinstate the source without first obtaining consensus on the talk page of the article in question or consensus about the reliability of the source in a discussion at the ].{{pb}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{censor}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|
|action1date=2005-03-09, 00:01:16 |
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Holocaust/archive1 |
|
|
|action1result=not promoted |
|
|
|action1oldid=10947640 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=GAN |
|
{{facfailed}} |
|
|
|
|action2date=14:46, 19 January 2006 |
|
|
|action2result=listed |
|
|
|action2oldid=35815819 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=GAR |
|
{{FAOL|Portuguese|pt:Holocausto}} |
|
|
|
|action3date=12:49, 5 July 2006 |
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Good_articles/Disputes/Archive_3#Holocaust |
|
|
|action3result=kept |
|
|
|action3oldid=60010245 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=FAC |
|
Previous discussions on this article are archived here: |
|
|
|
|action4date=15:48, 16 November 2006 |
|
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Holocaust/archive2 |
|
|
|action4result=not promoted |
|
|
|action4oldid=88175095 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=GAR |
|
*] |
|
|
|
|action5date=22:16, May 3, 2007 |
|
*] |
|
|
|
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Good article review/Archive 17#The Holocaust |
|
*] |
|
|
|
|action5result=delisted |
|
*] |
|
|
|
|action5oldid=128070375 |
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
*] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action6=PR |
|
==]== |
|
|
|
|action6date=11:23, 11 June 2007 |
|
I don't think the and only adding sources that confirm them complies with POV. --] 21:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/The Holocaust/archive1 |
|
|
|action6result=reviewed |
|
|
|action6oldid=137140199 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action7=GAN |
|
:Vizcarra, I am confused by your point -- you seem to be saying that Holocaust denial deserves equal time, is that correct? I also want to point out that you deleted info about the countries where Holocaust denial is illegal, quotes from peer-reviewed journals saying that Holocaust denial was motivated by hate groups and not taken seriously by historians, and you deleted a quote about the difference between denial and revisionism. Are there are reason these three points are bothering you? |
|
|
|
|action7date=21:09, 3 October 2007 |
|
:Holocaust denial is a lie, really and truly, it is pseudoscience repudiated by basically every historian on the planet, it has been repeatedly found baseless in any court case where it has come up, the people pushing it have been found multiple times to have forged materials and distorted facts, it has been repeatedly linked with anti-Semitism and racism, and is in totally contradiction with mounds of evidence. Truth is not a POV. Claims by hate groups do not get equal weight with the mass of history in Misplaced Pages. The section on Holocaust denial in the article is a sad necessity, and already longer than the entire section on the extermination camps. I wish that we didn't have to have the section at all, but the fact that some people seem to believe it, or at least promote it, makes it necessary. This is not an issue about POV, it is an issue about stopping lies, it is like saying that the article on the ] should devote more time to views that the Jews drink babies blood. --] 21:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action7link=Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 16#Quick-failed "good article" nomination |
|
::No, I never mentioned "equal time" but if it must be included it deserves to be described from a neutral point of view. Truth is not a POV but the definition or perception of truth is. I am aware that you have a strong opinion on the topic but that should not prevent you from presenting a unbias account. I think a problem here is that you are describing ] with '''denying the holocaust'''. The first involves doing the second '''or''' claiming that the numbers claimed by historians is wrong. The second one is illegal in many countries, as it claims the Holocaust did not happen. Some Jewish personalities can fall into the first category, so most of the adjectives including before the revert would not make sense. I do not have strong feelings for either, but think that every article in wikipedia should reflect NPOVs. Both sides claim the other side is lying. You have made it clear which side are you on, both article should not be on either side. --] 22:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action7result=fail |
|
:::I would appreciate it if you stop re-introducing the text while it is under discussion, for starters it is rude. --] 22:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action7oldid=162023379 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action8=GAN |
|
:::Vizcarra, I am afraid I am going to need you to explain further. What is the first type of Holocaust denial that you are talking about? You say the second is claiming that the Holocaust did not happen, but I don't understand the difference between that and the first type. Who are the "Jewish personalities" that you say are Holocaust deniers under the definition in the article? Which reputable scholars are Holocaust deniers under the definition of the article? Holocaust deniers are a well-known phenomenon, and I am not sure how you can suggest this confusion exists, in fact, one section you deleted discusses how revisionism and denial differs. Please provide sourced information on the "confusion" because you are deleting sources from the article without giving any support for your points. |
|
|
|
|action8date=23:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC) |
|
:::Besides, you have deleted material that has been in the article for over a year claiming it was new, which it wasn't. And I did not reintroduce any text since your last revert, another editor did, I am not being "rude". --] 22:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action8link=/GA1 |
|
::::Do not be afraid of asking for explanations it is better than to make assumptions. Read the article ] and if you still have any questions as to what positions fall under the umbrella of HD we can analyze them. The article also mentions reputable scholars that are HD under the definition of the article. I do not need any support for my points, but in turn addition of material needs to conform to POV, and at this point it has not. One cannot possibly describe an organization using bias and only citing sources that support such bias. --] 22:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action8result=fail |
|
:::::Vizcarra, what reputable scholars are Holocaust deniers? There certainly aren't any in the article on Holocaust denial, in fact the opposite. And you really do need to support your points with some evidence -- you claim that legitimate Jewish scholars are Holocaust deniers, which ones? Again, one does not need to give equal time to a lie, it is not a POV issue. If you can give me some information on the problem you see, or some data on the legitimacy of Holocaust denial research, then we can continue this discussion, but I am still not sure what you are objecting to. ] 23:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action8oldid= |
|
::::::This is the second time that I explain to you that I never mentioned "equal time". Just so you can be sure of what I am objecting to I will repeat it: It is the inclusion of biased material and one-sided sources. HD being a lie is your POV, HD's POV is that their opponents account of the Holocaust is a lie. Neither is absolute truth. And would you '''please''' stop twisting my words, because if you keep doing that this discussion will go nowhere. I never mentioned "Jewish scholars" being HD. I mentioned both "scholars" (such as ], ] which you would have found mentioned in ]) and "Jewish personalities" (such as ]). --] 23:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::"Neither is absolute truth"? Vizcarra, Holocaust denial being a lie is not a POV, it is indeed the absolute truth. Really. 5 to 6 million Jews were killed by Hitler, they were shot at ], they were gassed at ], they were slaughtered in the ]. Do you really think this is "a point of view"? Your three scholars are bit dubious -- ] does not deny the Holocaust, he thinks it is being exploited. Harry Elmer Barnes's piece on the Holocaust in the 1940s has since been entirely discredited, and he died forty years ago in any case. ] was found by the courts of England to have "persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidence...he is anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism." He is certainly not a "scholar." Not everything is relative. Do you really believe that all of the articles on the Holocaust are just a POV, just as Holocaust denial is legitimate? That is very, very depressing. I really am not trying to twist your words, here, I am just reading what you said about material attacking Holocaust denial being "biased" and "one sided" and the historical account of the Holocaust not being "the absolute truth" compared to Holocaust denial. ] 23:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::They might be dubious (who isn't) but they are indeed reputable. And if two reputable historians are ] then "maybe" your POV is not the absolute truth. "Do you really believe that all of the articles on the Holocaust are just a POV, just as Holocaust denial is legitimate? That is very, very depressing" Like I said would you please stop putting words in my mouth. '''Please''', we are not going to go anywhere like that. If a subject is the object of controversy and you project only one side while the other one is supported by reputable scholars, then yes, the addition is biased. --] 23:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
How can a scholar be both reputable and dubious? Either their work is discredited, or it isn't. ]] 23:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action9=GAN |
|
:Well, ] being "dubious" is Goodoldpolonius' POV, however his wikipedia article describes him not only as "reputable" but as a leading historian. --] 00:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action9date=02:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|action9link=/GA2 |
|
|
|action9result=pass |
|
|
|action9oldid=1156884241 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
::I don't understand how you can call David Irving a reputable historian, the judge at his trial said that he was not, and that he made up evidence, from his trial: "'''if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then 'Irving is not a historian'''". That is pretty much the exact opposite. And I challenge you to find any historian who says that Barnes comments from fifty five years ago on the Holocaust were reputable or correct. And yes, you really keep calling the historicity of the Holocaust a point of view, you did it above. Perhaps you should read and . --] 00:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|dykdate=5 June 2023 |
|
::The article also doesn't describe Barnes' Holocaust revisionism theories. At all. Something tells me it might be lacking in content. If we're going to take Misplaced Pages as the Gospel truth, ] explains that Barnes' work regarding the Holocaust was pretty widely discredited, regardless of the merits of his other, earlier work. ]] 02:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|dykentry=... that ] were enacted by ] in the years leading up to ''']''' ''(victims pictured)''{{-?}} |
|
|
|dyknom=Template:Did you know nominations/The Holocaust |
|
|
|topic=History |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|listas=Holocaust|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Disaster management|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Death|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject European history|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Israel|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=High|ethics=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Disability}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history |WWII=yes |German=yes |B-Class-1=yes |B-Class-2=yes |B-Class-3=yes |B-Class-4=yes |B-Class-5=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press | subject = article | title = Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed | org = ] | url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23354613 | date = 18 July 2013 | archiveurl = | archivedate =}} |
|
|
<!-- The following comments relate to actions in the article history. Per the documentation for that template it should not include comments, so they have been moved from inside the template to here --> |
|
|
<!-- This comment relates to action2 and action3 |
|
|
seeming --GA arbitrary listing (no {{GAC}} tag) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:The_Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=35817227 |
|
|
FAC tag added without actually truly posting for candidacy at ] 18:53, 23 May 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:The_Holocaust&diff=next&oldid=54535738 |
|
|
Tag removed 01:08, 3 June 2006 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:The_Holocaust&diff=next&oldid=56590481 --> |
|
|
<!-- This comment and the next relate to action4. |
|
|
Oddly no {{FAC}} tag on page during debate and not listed at ] (see http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:The_Holocaust&diff=next&oldid=142956072 & http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:The_Holocaust&diff=next&oldid=143011334)--><!-- That is partially correct. It was correctly archived. It wasn't correctly templated on the talk page, but was noticed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:The_Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=86927789 --> |
|
|
<!-- This comment relates to action6 |
|
|
See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:The_Holocaust&diff=next&oldid=143011334 --> |
|
|
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes |1= |
|
|
{{old move|collapse=yes |
|
|
|date=30 January 2007 |
|
|
|from=The Holocaust |
|
|
|destination=Holocaust |
|
|
|result=Not moved |
|
|
|link=Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 13#Requested move |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|date2=21 August 2010 |
|
:Beyond agreeing fully with Goodoldpolonius here, I'd just like to reaffirm that NPOV is not the same thing as this kind of nihilistic relativism that Vizcarra seems to be pushing here. (Also, why isn't Norman Finkelstein a scholar? According to our article on him, he's a political science professor at DePaul with a Princeton PhD. That makes him more of a scholar than David Irving, although, as GOP has pointed out, Finkelstein doesn't actually deny the holocaust, so he's not a very good example.) As to David Irving, I can assure you that he is most certainly ''not'' a reputable historian. I'd say that since the libel trial, most historians would be highly reluctant to even call him a historian at all. Whatever credibility Irving may still have (which is certainly very, very, very little), it is in spite of, rather than because of, his holocaust denial. As to Harry Elmer Barnes, he was certainly a real historian, but even his actual historical work (the classic revisionist stuff on the origins of World War I, and so forth) is generally seen to be wholly discredited, while his later, holocaust denying stuff, is entirely dismissed by any actual scholars. The basic fact is that there are no reputable scholarly studies that say that the Holocaust did not happen, or that the numbers were wildly exaggerated. This is for the same reason that there are no reputable historical studies claiming that the First World War did not happen, or that George Washington was actually a woman - there is no evidence to back up this stuff. Unlike those other absurdities, though, Holocaust denial fits with the political agenda of a particularly odious, but outspoken, group, and thus it gets bandied about as though it has some claim to scholarly validity by certain groups. ] 00:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|from2=The Holocaust |
|
|
|destination2=Holocaust |
|
|
|result2=No consensus |
|
|
|link2=Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 25#Requested move |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|date3=10 June 2013 |
|
::I'm not pushing anything, and that's a bad start for a constructive discussion. And you are agreeing on the wrong things here since I never clained Finkelstein was a historian. Again, I am not claiming that the Holocaust not happening deserves any attention, but that there are reputable personalities that think that the accounts of the Holocaust are not accurate. And ] would include these. --] 00:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|from3=The Holocaust |
|
:::No, I was confused by the fact that you said that Finkelstein was not a ''scholar''. He is most certainly a scholar. As to reputable personalities thinking that the accounts of the holocaust are not accurate is nonsense. David Irving is simply not reputable; Finkelstein does ''not'' think that accounts of the holocaust are not accurate - just that the "holocaust industry" exploits the memory of the holocaust to promote policies he doesn't like. If the best we can do for reputable historians engaging in holocaust denial is the wacky late work of the already dubious Harry Elmer Barnes, then, no, there are not reputable personalities who engage in holocaust denial. ] 01:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|destination3=Holocaust |
|
*''there are reputable personalities that think that the accounts of the Holocaust are not accurate'' -- The reputable ones are called "historians" and practice "history". Who do you have in mind? --]] 04:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|result3=Moved |
|
|
|link3=Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 28#Requested move |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|date4=1 August 2013 |
|
This seems to be getting rather pointless, so to recap: Vizcarra originally objected that there is a catagory of "reputable scholars that are under the definition of the article." The definition in the article is: "...that far fewer than around six million Jews were killed by the Nazis (numbers below one million, most often around 300,000 are typically cited); that there never was a centrally-planned Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jews; and/or that there were not mass killings at the extermination camps." So far, Vizcarra gave three names of people who he said were reputable scholars that are mislabelled as Holocaust deniers: one was not a Holocaust denier, a second was the much repudiated later work of a historian in the 1960s, and the final one was found by courts to be lying about his evidence and was ruled "not a historian." I am not sure where that leaves Vizcarra's objection, or his desire to object. Vizcarra, do you still think the section needs to be changed, and to what? Discussion is great and all, but I am not sure where this is going, and arguing for the sake of it is only worth doing for so long. --] 06:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|from4=Holocaust |
|
|
|destination4=The Holocaust |
|
|
|result4=Moved/Reverted |
|
|
|link4=Talk:The Holocaust/Archive 28#Follow-up discussion about a hasty decision |
|
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
Polonius, I agree with you though I wouldn't go so far to say that Irving is "not a historian" or "not a scholar" (even if the court said that). However, Irving certainly is no longer a respectable scholar, thanks to his Holocaust denying works. Of course, that takes nothing away from your overall conclusion. ] 17:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{Annual readership |width=570 |days=182}} |
|
|
{{Section sizes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:The Holocaust/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:The Holocaust/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{tan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|counter = 41 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:The Holocaust/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Sephardic and Mizrahi Jewish victims in the holocaust == |
|
Having reread your earlier quote from the court, I agree with the court that he is not "reputable historian" anymore, with the emphasis on reputable. He was (and might still be) able to perform the historian's craft, but in the books in question, he didn't. And frabricating evidence certainly is the worst of the worst. ] 17:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
There were also Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews who were sent to concentration camps by the Nazis. |
|
|
For example, greek Jews, Lybian Jews and Italian Jews. It is worth to correct the opening statement in this article stating that the holocaust in the genocide of European Jews. ] (]) 18:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Most Holocaust scholars do not regard the fates of Jews outside of continental Europe as being part of the Holocaust, though some do and there has been a trend among scholars to do so as the years have gone on—maybe an acknowledgement of that controversy is due in the lead. In general, this article could do with more historiography. <span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧁</span>]<span style="position: relative; top: -0.5em;">꧂</span> 01:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|The Holocaust|answered=yes}} |
|
|
At the first line of the basic definition of the Holocaust, I would like to add 'Slavs, especially the Polish' to the list of groups that were targeted by the Holocaust. Obviously, the Jews weren't the only ones getting persecuted, and to glance over the fact that about 2 million Poles were killed is offensive. ] (]) 16:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{not done}}:<!-- Template:EEp --> see faq #2 ] (]) 09:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:(Let me preface by saying that lovely Jewish friends and influences have been and are important to me. Zionism is distinct from Judaism. None of this is to diminish the disgrace of the Nazis’ targeting of Jewish people. However, the Nazis were supremacists, and supremacists will target any that are outside their group. It therefore follows that the Nazis would likely target many other than Jewish people, and they did. Those murders deserve to be acknowledged, and those murders do not deserved to have the memory of them suppressed by restriction of the only available and commonly-understood word {Holocaust} so as to deny it to them.) |
|
|
:This is a question that relates to issues of multiple pages. |
|
|
:To the post below ____ at ] at the note: |
|
|
:<blockquote>“Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2024 At the first line of the basic definition of the Holocaust, I would like to add 'Slavs, especially the Polish' to the list of groups that were targeted by the Holocaust. Obviously, the Jews weren't the only ones getting persecuted, and to glance over the fact that about 2 million Poles were killed is offensive. TheRealNeurologix (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC) <nowiki>{{ This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.}}</nowiki>"</blockquote> |
|
|
:I agree. It takes a good bit of digging to find the page <]>. It should not take any digging, it should be part of the definition, and should be listed under Holocaust, with all affected subgroups having their own pages as would be useful titled such as “Nazi Holocaust against the people”. |
|
|
:Type in <]> and you get a page that DOES NOT EVEN MENTION THE NON-JEWISH VICTIMS. Explain to me please how that is acceptable. Obviously the Jewish victims were central in the Nazis’ warped corrupt policy. But there were about 18million killed by the Nazis’ policies against non-Aryan people, of which 17,000,000 - 6,000,000 = 11,000,000 were non-Jewish. Do they really deserve to be forgotten? |
|
|
:The reservation of the word Holocaust — to many signifying the Nazi targeting-for-extermination of any of the groups it declared objectionable — to only Jewish victims would be fine if there were a general word for the Nazi extermination intent and program. |
|
|
:But no such word is offered. |
|
|
:Therefore, such reservation of the word Holocaust unfairly relegates the murders of Slav and Sinti-Romani to some other difficult-to-find place to which not even a pointer is supplied. |
|
|
:The complete fact of Nazi genocide must be acknowledged, and information about it pointed to. To do otherwise is to put this page into political service of Zionism. |
|
|
:The note (b) under Holocaust "... ], p. 6, |
|
|
:<blockquote>- "Echoing this view, some have contended that the expression 'the Holocaust' ought to refer not only to the encounter between the Third Reich and the Jews but also to 'the horrors that Poles, other Slavs, and Gypsies endured at the hands of the Nazis' (Lukas, 1986: 220)…” - </blockquote> |
|
|
:… illustrates this. |
|
|
:If the word “HOLOCAUST" is to be reserved exclusively to Jewish victims (which I agree/think were the identity suffering the most from the Holocaust), then that Decision risks denying_the_holocaust of the Roma/Sinti, Slavs, and others. And THAT (Roma, Slav, etc.) information is quite tedious to find in Misplaced Pages (it OUGHT TO BE linked right next to any exclusivist definition of “Holocaust”). The EFFECT then is that reserving the word "Holocaust" to only the Jewish victims is political: it thus lends itself _the_more_ to service of Zionism (and yes, sure, the page is not about Zionism, and I agree it should Not be, but if this definition prevails without an inclusive term offered alongside to replace the Universal meaning of Holocaust then the page becomes exclusivist and in service to Zionism). |
|
|
:There exists a page called "Romani Holocaust" ]. I.e. it is also a ‘Holocaust’ page. |
|
|
:This current page “The Holocaust” page should ''likewise'' be called “Jewish Holocaust”_* and there should be a “Nazi Holocaust (also see _*)” page listing the Nazi Holocaust in entire with links to specific pages. |
|
|
:This page should be called “Jewish Holocaust, the Shoah”. |
|
|
:<blockquote><blockquote>_* Generally, and contrary to the naming convention like “Romani Holocaust": clear terminology should express “A’s campaign regarding B”, thus generally encapsulate Actor_or_Culprit and Victim. Thus the “Nazi Holocaust” would mean all of the Nazis' extermination attempts against any groups based on the identification of that group. That requires that the victim group be put second, and the culprit group be placed first. </blockquote><blockquote>On that basis there should be a suite of pages called (e.g.) Nazi Holocaust against/of Jewish people, Nazi Holocaust/of against Romani/Sinti people, Nazi Holocaust against/of Slavic people, Nazi Holocaust against/of Jehovah’s Witness people, etc. All should be linked from a page called “Nazi Holocaust” which would mean holocaust done by Nazis, against any. </blockquote></blockquote> |
|
|
:Note that in note (b) of the page there are suggestions that NEITHER the words Holocaust nor Shoah should be used. I’d say they require a definition, at which I’ve hinted above. And unless the terms are shown to be unacceptable regardless of definition and contextual framing, those terms should be used (accepted from usage, with restrictions of definition that are necessary to ensure both fairness and precision). ] (]) 19:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Non Jewish == |
|
|
|
|
|
The holocaust was not just Jewish murders. There were five million others murder. This page is a lie ] (]) 11:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{tq|The Holocaust was the genocide of European Jews during World War II. Between 1941 and 1945, Nazi Germany and its collaborators systematically murdered some six million Jews across German-occupied Europe, around two-thirds of Europe's Jewish population.}}" This page is about that, for other genocides look further {{tq|Separate Nazi persecutions killed a similar or larger number of non-Jewish civilians and prisoners of war (POWs);}} If you only had an ability to read with comprehension. ] (]) 13:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 December 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit extended-protected|The Holocaust|answered=yes}} |
|
|
In Rise of Nazi Germany - Persecution of Jews, 3rd paragraph. Grammar error |
|
|
"Out of the 560000 jews 130000 was able to emigrate between 1933 and 1937, most of them towards South Africa, Mandatory Palestine, and South America." |
|
|
|
|
|
"Out of the 560,000 Jews in Germany, 130,000 were able to..." ] (]) 06:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
: Done ] (]) 08:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC) |
There were also Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews who were sent to concentration camps by the Nazis.
For example, greek Jews, Lybian Jews and Italian Jews. It is worth to correct the opening statement in this article stating that the holocaust in the genocide of European Jews. 2A06:C701:4D27:3500:1CE4:442C:6349:35F3 (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
At the first line of the basic definition of the Holocaust, I would like to add 'Slavs, especially the Polish' to the list of groups that were targeted by the Holocaust. Obviously, the Jews weren't the only ones getting persecuted, and to glance over the fact that about 2 million Poles were killed is offensive. TheRealNeurologix (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
In Rise of Nazi Germany - Persecution of Jews, 3rd paragraph. Grammar error
"Out of the 560000 jews 130000 was able to emigrate between 1933 and 1937, most of them towards South Africa, Mandatory Palestine, and South America."